3rd question - Asking for your help with Play Visions!!!

Currently, we are working hardly in Play Visions pages on Toy Animal Wiki.
The brand is very popular among collectors and it was always a big puzzle to find all their figures and to which bulks, tubes or sets they belong.
Beatrice, an avid and dedicated collector of these figures as studied them for a long time and now is contributing directly on the Wiki being a precious source of information and providing pictures from her collection. Actually, this topic intends to be a complement to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]... futurely merged and thus updated.
As you can see in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  that Junglejim gave to Beatrice and that she, kindly, posted on forum. We could find a lot of informations and organize most of the sets. Though, not all are presented in this catalogue and there are still some doubts remaining.
That's the point, although we are already some STS members working directly on TAI, I believe that envolving our whole community, we'll be able of completing a better work.
So, get your PV figures ready, keep watching this topic once I'll place some questions here and sometimes, a little opinion or information is enough to find the correct way.

1st question is related to some supposed mislabeling of PV figures. I think, we collectors, are often very optimistic and we love to say that something is mislabeled to assign a less common species to a certain figure instead.
We did it to to tamandua and three-toed sloth from Manu Amazon Bulk, we wanted them to be a Northern tamandua and a pale-throated sloth. Though, being them from a bulk called Manu Amazon, they are almost surely a Southern tamandua and a brown-throated sloth once these are the species present in that park. In these two cases, is not easy to reflect the species differences in such small figurines.
However, that question is about a figure which identification is between two not so similar species.

The first picture is from Andreas and shows a figure that is marked "PILOT WHALE", "1996" and has the number "1".
It is often regarded as a pygmy killer whale instead.
As we can see in 2nd picture, from 1998 catalogue, it belongs to the Whales bulk #1052 from 1996. It is just in front of the (big) humpback whale.
3rd and 4th pictures are draws used to identify cetaceans being 3rd a short-finned pilot whale, while 4th shows a pygmy killer whale. Short-finned because Beatrice owns another figure marked with that exact species name.
Another interesting point is that none of these species is actually a whale.  Both are dolphins but this figure is not present in Dolphins bulk.

So, what's your opinion, is it a pilot whale as it is marked, a pygmy killer whale as many suggest or any other species?
I promise to be more succinct with next question.


The watermarked cetaceans draws are from this wonderful website:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Is there any way to do a cross-reference? Or article referencing the pic in the magazine noting the ambiguity...?

From coloring and the shape of the body near the tail, pilot whale.
Fins seem more in line with the pygmy killer whale though...

Whales are not my expertise

Its really hard to say. Like Laura said this figurine looks similar for both.

For me it is more a Pilot whale, the fins are not perfect but the dorsal fin is at the right place for a pilot whale not for a pygmy killer whale. The head looks like nothing... There is no obvious choice so the best is to follow Playvisions choice .

Thanks for your imput, I agree with you, it is not a perfect replica of a pilot whale but it isn't neither a good replica of a pygmy killer whale. Actually, there are more wrong features when comparing it with the pygmy killer whale.
As Laura commented, coloring and caudal shape is of a pilot whale and the forward position of the dorsal fin is also more tipical to a pilot whale as Christophe suggested. I agree the head isn't anything and that the shape of dorsal fin is wrong to this species. Regarding the pygmy killer whale, besides the dorsal fin shape, not point of insertion, I can't find other features that fit better that species, thus, I agree it is not enough to deny what the company proposes.

Wilorvise wrote:

Is there any way to do a cross-reference?  Or article referencing the pic in the magazine noting the ambiguity...?

We are writing a scientific article about this new species to be published soon. Though, as pygmy killer pilot whale is a very long name, we simplified it to Kamikaze whale instead.

1998 catalogue also helped us finding that the figure marked Beluga Whale, often identified as Irrawaddy dolphin by collectors, doesn't belong to dolphins bulk but to whales bulk instead as we can see in the picture above. That's the white whale we can see close to the fluke of the big humpback whale.
We've also found that the orca whale was not from whales bulk but dolphins instead what makes all sense once orcas are dolphins. Numbers marked on figures also match the catalogue although the number of the sperm whale could not be found in Lance's, Beatrice's and my own figure. As number 8 is the only left, it was easy to attribute this number to the sperm whale. If anyone have a PV sperm whale with a number on it, just let us know.
Back to the white whalequestion, why collectors often call it an irrawaddy dolphin and not a beluga as it is marked?
As we can see in Andreas' picture below, it is clearly painted like a beluga but again, the dorsal fin seems the big problem. Belugas don't have a dorsal fin and the figure has it. Also, we believed that it was part of dolphins bulk and belugas are not dolphins. As a little remark, I think that irrawaddy dolphins were also not considered dolphins in 1996 but whales instead due to their similarities with belugas. Recently they were considered dolphins and more closely related with orcas.
I added a 3rd species, the Australian snubfin dolphin, before believed to be a subspecies of Irrawaddy but now moved to the species level. The main differences with the irrawaddy is that it lacks a dorsal groove, has a darker dorsal cape and lighter lateral and ventral parts.
OK, not being very succinct again but here is my question:

Is it a irrawaddy dolphin mislabeled as beluga or a mis-shaped beluga with a dorsal fin erroneously included?

Pictures from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lol. Cute.

I guess it's the peduncle(?) that might make the difference to me. Does play visions typically have the larger area right before the tail on all their marine life? I only ask because if they typically do so than that cannot be the determination factor, but if they vary it significantly then it might help.
The bump on the head does seem a little more likely for the Beluga, but the distal fin does pose an interesting quandary.

I'm guessing the database is using something approaching mysql and adding a note would mess up the entire database...

As it is marked as a Beluga and shows that way in their catalog I would take their word for it and list it as such. The color is really a defining feature here too.
I think someone could do a repaint and make a very good Australian snubfin dolphin out of it though

Thanks Tim and Laura, it is good to have your considerations in these little details. It was easy for me to take a decision as I did with sloth and tamandua destroying some "myths" but I wanted others opinions in some of these figures. Now dolphins and whales are correctly determined. It seems there is another whales collection but I don't have any evidences of it.

Wilorvise wrote:

Lol. Cute.

I guess it's the peduncle(?) that might make the difference to me. Does play visions typically have the larger area right before the tail on all their marine life? I only ask because if they typically do so than that cannot be the determination factor, but if they vary it significantly then it might help.
The bump on the head does seem a little more likely for the Beluga, but the distal fin does pose an interesting quandary.  

I'm guessing the database is using something approaching mysql and adding a note would mess up the entire database...

Laura, I love your observance and comments even I need to reuse a translator to understand some of them. Quandary is a new word for me and very adjusted to this topic.
Actually, it is somewhat disturbing to determine it as a beluga whale when we know that belugas are finless. Fortunately, their finless porpoise doesn't have a dorsal fin as well as their narwhal. It also doesn't seem to result from a other species reused mould once all Play Visions cetaceans have, apparently, different moulds. I think all peduncles look somewhat thick because caudal areas are shorter than they should be. Though, there's some variability among their designs.

Hmmm. Actually, I suppose it depends a lot on what material they used for reference. For instance, Educational Coloring page pdf is copyright 2010 and still has a notable fin.

I donno if they take the little back arch and use creative license or they just can't fathom the thought of a whale without a dorsal fin...

Wilorvise wrote:

Hmmm. Actually, I suppose it depends a lot on what material they used for reference. For instance, Educational Coloring page pdf is copyright 2010 and still has a notable fin.

I donno if they take the little back arch and use creative license or they just can't fathom the thought of a whale without a dorsal fin...

I think it is a kind of dolphin rule! People is used with the bottlenoses dolphins with their conspicuous dorsal fin. When I was a kid, dorsal fins were always synomym of great white sharks.

Could you help me identifying which species are the bird on top left and bottom left? My poor sight is not very helpful when pictures are not sharp. I know others are bald eagle, secretary bird, Egyptian vulture, crested caracara and the last is a common krestel. Strangely, this is the only PV bulk I know with 7 figures, the 8th is a larger picture of the secretary bird.
Other usual candidats to this bulk are harpy eagle, osprey and condor but I can't be sure which are here pictured. It was also helpful if owners of caracara and kestrel could informe me which number is marked on them and also in these that I can't identify from the catalogue picture... please.

Thanks!

In this set are a kestrel, a caracara, a king vulture( the only figurine of this specie by a brand in this moment- the egyptian vulture only have Epoch) , a secretary bird, a osprey ( i think this figurine you mean), a harp eagle( no 1 in this pic) and a bald eagle. I have a few of them and can send a pic and the informations that you want :)

widukind wrote:

In this set are a kestrel, a caracara, a king vulture( the only figurine of this specie by a brand in this moment- the egyptian vulture only have Epoch) , a secretary bird, a osprey ( i think this figurine you mean), a harp eagle( no 1 in this pic) and a bald eagle. I have a few of them and can send a pic and the informations that you want :)

Thanks Andreas, Egyptian vulture was my mistake while writing it, we always had it listed as a king vulture and I'll fix it in my post. So, according with you the first is a harpy eagle and the other I'm asking is an osprey. No Andean condor themn.
I'll let you know which pictures are needed but now I need some figure numbers to organize it. If you have any of these could you please check? Harpy eagle (2?), caracara (4?), kestrel (6?). We have the number 8 to the osprey but that's surely the number for the Yellowstone version. These numbers are important once they help us to know what belongs to bulks that we don't know from catalogues.

I will look :)

widukind wrote:

I will look :)

Thanks Andreas, numbers and years are important once species are all now confirmed with your help. The catalogue picture on Beatrice's Play Visions topic is better and no doubts that these two are a harpy and an osprey.

Roger wrote:

widukind wrote:

I will look :)

Thanks Andreas, numbers and years are important once species are all now confirmed with your help. The catalogue picture on Beatrice's Play Visions topic is better and no doubts that these two are a harpy and an osprey.

At the moment, i dont have the full set and i know i traded the harp eagle in the past (but it was from the Amazonas set). I have the caracara Nr4, Kestrel Nr 8 and King vulture Nr 1 , all from 1998 (but it could also possible that it is 1999- very hard to see, also for my eagle-eye daughter ). But i will look if i have more and will let you know :)

widukind wrote:

Roger wrote:

widukind wrote:

I will look :)

Thanks Andreas, numbers and years are important once species are all now confirmed with your help. The catalogue picture on Beatrice's Play Visions topic is better and no doubts that these two are a harpy and an osprey.

At the moment, i dont have the full set and i know i traded the harp eagle in the past (but it was from the Amazonas set). I have the caracara Nr4, Kestrel Nr 8 and King vulture Nr 1 , all from 1998 (but it could also possible that it is 1999- very hard to see, also for my eagle-eye daughter ). But i will look if i have more and will let you know :)

That's very kind from you and your Princess! Send to her my greetings and tell her that I'll do everything to find a snowball from a city where never snows. They're almost surely all marked 1998 once it is the year of the bulks from where they belong. So, king vulture is confirmed as well as caracara. We didn't have a number for kestrel, a number 8 is a kind of confuse for a bulk of 7 figures and the only number we have for osprey is also number 8. Though, it may be the number of the osprey for Yellowstone Wildlife set.
This is almost like a puzzle, I wished more people was sharing info like you're doing. With some bulks we almost locked and suddenly, a little information was enough to find the right answer. A good example is the bat-eared fox that can be found with two different numbers and years.
So, harpy, osprey are still missing numbers, we need to understand why there's a #8 in a 7 pieces bulk and there's also an orphaned Andean Condor with a number 3 that is not yet used in this bulk.

Roger wrote:

widukind wrote:

Roger wrote:

widukind wrote:

I will look :)

Thanks Andreas, numbers and years are important once species are all now confirmed with your help. The catalogue picture on Beatrice's Play Visions topic is better and no doubts that these two are a harpy and an osprey.

At the moment, i dont have the full set and i know i traded the harp eagle in the past (but it was from the Amazonas set). I have the caracara Nr4, Kestrel Nr 8 and King vulture Nr 1 , all from 1998 (but it could also possible that it is 1999- very hard to see, also for my eagle-eye daughter ). But i will look if i have more and will let you know :)

That's very kind from you and your Princess! Send to her my greetings and tell her that I'll do everything to find a snowball from a city where never snows.  They're almost surely all marked 1998 once it is the year of the bulks from where they belong. So, king vulture is confirmed as well as caracara. We didn't have a number for kestrel, a number 8 is a kind of confuse for a bulk of 7 figures  and the only number we have for osprey is also number 8. Though, it may be the number of the osprey for Yellowstone Wildlife set.
This is almost like a puzzle, I wished more people was sharing info like you're doing. With some bulks we almost locked and suddenly, a little information was enough to find the right answer. A good example is the bat-eared fox that can be found with two different numbers and years.
So, harpy, osprey are still missing numbers, we need to understand why there's a #8 in a 7 pieces bulk and there's also an orphaned Andean Condor with a number 3 that is not yet used in this bulk.

Thank you, i will tell her :) I am sure that some only "made in china" models have this numbers too. And i think thy are also often confuse. But it is also possible that i remember me wrong. I think i bought a set of Gran Canaria with Playvisions copys or similar like that (frogs,crabs and fishes ). In the fish set are some copys i think from the eel set. But not all of the set are copys. So include this set also a flying fish.
And it is also a red howler figurine and this figurine is not a part of the monkey set :)

Yes, funny thing, I also realized they forgot indeed to picture the andean condor! I'm pretty sure it belongs to this set anyway, they never make sets out of seven, only six or eight, and the condor would be an orphan then. For caracara I checked it again and it is indeed a 4

widukind wrote:

Thank you, i will tell her :) I am sure that some only "made in china" models have this numbers too. And i think thy are also often confuse. But it is also possible that i remember me wrong. I think i bought a set of Gran Canaria with Playvisions copys or similar like that (frogs,crabs and fishes ). In the fish set are some copys i think from the eel set. But not all of the set are copys. So include this set also a flying fish.
And it is also a red howler figurine and this figurine is not a part of the monkey set :)

That's very interesting and, after introducing all possible information about Play Visions on TAI, We'll try to list all related series from Yujin that used the same moulds, explore a little XX figures and even PEC. Surely, we will also research a little about all these copies and related non copies and put information about them. Though, this work is only possible when Play Visions series are better known.

Froggie wrote:

Yes, funny thing, I also realized they forgot indeed to picture the andean condor! I'm pretty sure it belongs to this set anyway, they never make sets out of seven, only six or eight, and the condor would be an orphan then. For caracara I checked it again and it is indeed a 4

I agree that is a good suggestion, it happens sometimes and much probably PV forgot to put the andean condor in that picture. Being it a 1998 marked figure, it solves some problems, no orphaned condor, filled number 6, number 8 is not anymore a problem in this set and the number of figures in this set is the standard. So, we only need osprey and harpy eagle numbers.

Froggie wrote:

Yes, funny thing, I also realized they forgot indeed to picture the andean condor! I'm pretty sure it belongs to this set anyway, they never make sets out of seven, only six or eight, and the condor would be an orphan then. For caracara I checked it again and it is indeed a 4

Was this set not a keychain set? It is possible thats the reason for 7 figurines is?

Roger wrote:

widukind wrote:

Thank you, i will tell her :) I am sure that some only "made in china" models have this numbers too. And i think thy are also often confuse. But it is also possible that i remember me wrong. I think i bought a set of Gran Canaria with Playvisions copys or similar like that (frogs,crabs and fishes ). In the fish set are some copys i think from the eel set. But not all of the set are copys. So include this set also a flying fish.
And it is also a red howler figurine and this figurine is not a part of the monkey set :)

That's very interesting and, after introducing all possible information about Play Visions on TAI, We'll try to list all related series from Yujin that used the same moulds, explore a little XX figures and even PEC. Surely, we will also research a little about all these copies and related non copies and put information about them. Though, this work is only possible when Play Visions series are better known.

One of my Yujin set, with the african animals, wasnt marked by Yujin , the figurines are marked by PV and K&M

I also have the secrectary bird, its nr 3 and from 1998 too

widukind wrote:

I also have the secrectary bird, its nr 3 and from 1998 too

It is getting funny! Beatrice has a secretary bird marked 5 and you another marked 3. The Andean condor is also number 3. Well, it is not a big problem, a big problem is that I don't have a single secretary bird yet.
The catalogue picture is in the middle of other bulks and apparently there's no indication that these are keyrings, I now about this Yujin African set, I still don't know how we will work them. If we will link to the original figures or if they're enough distinct to have their own page on TAI.