Play Visions: listing of sets, animals and scientific names

Roger wrote:

Bowhead Whale wrote:

Roger wrote:

Bowhead Whale wrote:

Roger wrote:

Bowhead Whale wrote:

Roger wrote:

OK , I want only to informe that in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] there is a list of figures whose pictures are still missing at Toy Animal Wiki. Maybe you have any of them and may want to contribute to the Wiki. :)

Will you use the pictures of my National Geographics card? Just by curiosity.

First I need your permission to use it, then, I need to start editing that section of blister cards to give a good use to it. Though, these card pictures are also very interesting to collectors, they help us to know what we are searching.

You certainly have my permission.

Thanks Vallerie!

The only thing I ask in return is credit for the pictures I provide. You know, something like: curtesy of Valerie Lahaie or thanks to... something like that.

Surely, Valerie, credits will be given.
I am just trying to open a page to these National Geographic 3 pieces blistercards but I have some doubts.
The card makes reference to 5 blisters (Dolphins, Predators, Reptiles, Sharks and Whales)
Though, I see only 3 pictured and the 3rd is not in that list. I believe those are Predators (grizzly, brown bear and polar bear), Sharks (not sure, great white, hammerhead and what?), and what is called the 3rd? Rainforest? (Boa constrictor, orangutan and red-eyed tree frog). OK, whales we already know (blue whale, bowhead whale and sperm whale).
Could you help please?

The Sharks set included Great White, Hammerhead and Tiger Shark, if I remember well.

sbell wrote:

I had one set 20 years ago that had a large tiger shark, plus a plstic tooth necklace. There was also one with a large angel shark plus a couple of small sharks. And I remember Walmart selling predators carded sets of 3 bears, 3 wild cats and 3 wild dogs (and sometimes the paint jobs differed from the 'normal--like a red coyote, or a darker cougar). In other words, there were a lot of variations in what the cards had on them.

These variations are actually what makes this somewhat redundant work to be interesting. I think that some you mentioned can be seen in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Though, I can't find these 3-pc blisters there. :) Maybe an Irwin Toy catalogue from 2000 or 2001 could help once they were the distributor of these blisters in Canada as we can see on Valerie's pictures. :)

Bowhead Whale wrote:

Roger wrote:

Bowhead Whale wrote:

Roger wrote:

Bowhead Whale wrote:

Roger wrote:

Bowhead Whale wrote:

Roger wrote:

OK , I want only to informe that in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] there is a list of figures whose pictures are still missing at Toy Animal Wiki. Maybe you have any of them and may want to contribute to the Wiki. :)

Will you use the pictures of my National Geographics card? Just by curiosity.

First I need your permission to use it, then, I need to start editing that section of blister cards to give a good use to it. Though, these card pictures are also very interesting to collectors, they help us to know what we are searching.

You certainly have my permission.

Thanks Vallerie!

The only thing I ask in return is credit for the pictures I provide. You know, something like: curtesy of Valerie Lahaie or thanks to... something like that.

Surely, Valerie, credits will be given.
I am just trying to open a page to these National Geographic 3 pieces blistercards but I have some doubts.
The card makes reference to 5 blisters (Dolphins, Predators, Reptiles, Sharks and Whales)
Though, I see only 3 pictured and the 3rd is not in that list. I believe those are Predators (grizzly, brown bear and polar bear), Sharks (not sure, great white, hammerhead and what?), and what is called the 3rd? Rainforest? (Boa constrictor, orangutan and red-eyed tree frog). OK, whales we already know (blue whale, bowhead whale and sperm whale).
Could you help please?

The Sharks set included Great White, Hammerhead and Tiger Shark, if I remember well.

Thanks, page is created here and as long as more information is known, it will be updated. Credits of your pictures are given, all figures pictured there are from Beatrice's collection. Not necessarily from these sets but besides some painting variations, models are the same.

The picture of the Chitwan National Park is known and I found it oportune to share it here.
Apparently these figures were sold also as Gir Forest National Park as Sean informed us.
It confirms the tiger instead of an orangutan but keep two open doubts. The gharial we see seems slightly different from the False gharial with know from Play Visions. However, difference is not enough clear to be sure that it is not the same figure. An Indian gharial makes more sense in this set though.
It is also not possible to be sure of which exact species this Asiatic rhino is. We use to identify it as a Javan rhino but a Indian rhino could work also better here, I guess. It is important also to remember that among bulk figures, common species use to be exclusive to National Park sets as it happens with lion, lioness, tiger, etc.
Nobody in this community seems to own this set what shows it is a rarity, we known only gaur and jackal from Sean's collection, langur is also present in monkey set.
If anyone meanwhile finds it, please share with us.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Roger wrote:

The picture of the Chitwan National Park is known and I found it oportune to share it here.
Apparently these figures were sold also as Gir Forest National Park as Sean informed us.
It confirms the tiger instead of an orangutan but keep two open doubts. The gharial we see seems slightly different from the False gharial with know from Play Visions. However, difference is not enough clear to be sure that it is not the same figure. An Indian gharial makes more sense in this set though.
It is also not possible to be sure of which exact species this Asiatic rhino is. We use to identify it as a Javan rhino but a Indian rhino could work also better here, I guess. It is important also to remember that among bulk figures, common species use to be exclusive to National Park sets as it happens with lion, lioness, tiger, etc.
Nobody in this community seems to own this set what shows it is a rarity, we known only gaur and jackal from Sean's collection, langur is also present in monkey set.
If anyone meanwhile finds it, please share with us.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I own this set. I have posted it before.

Yes, I remember your post Your set had the orangutan instead of the tiger.

jhudstone wrote:

I own this set. I have posted it before.

Jack, i checked all your 140 posts and I haven't found it, maybe the picture got lost. The picture I posted is not an official Play Visions picture so it may vary from what PV really offered. Also, all information provided here is listed at the Toy Animal Wiki in this page, if you have time and find some inconsistencies, just let us know.

Roger wrote:

jhudstone wrote:

I own this set. I have posted it before.

Jack, i checked all your 140 posts and I haven't found it, maybe the picture got lost. The picture I posted is not an official Play Visions picture so it may vary from what PV really offered. Also, all information provided here is listed at the Toy Animal Wiki in this page, if you have time and find some inconsistencies, just let us know.

The post appears to be gone, but the picture I originally posted of my figures is at the beginning of this thread:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

jhudstone wrote:

Roger wrote:

jhudstone wrote:

I own this set. I have posted it before.

Jack, i checked all your 140 posts and I haven't found it, maybe the picture got lost. The picture I posted is not an official Play Visions picture so it may vary from what PV really offered. Also, all information provided here is listed at the Toy Animal Wiki in this page, if you have time and find some inconsistencies, just let us know.

The post appears to be gone, but the picture I originally posted of my figures is at the beginning of this thread:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Blind croc! I missed it, maybe I thought it was just one of these signature pics. Thanks once more Jack!

But that photo includes a false gharial figure (I just sent one to Beatrice). The figure in the PV stock photo is the true gharial.

I think Play Visions shuffled figures around for different sets.

there are two different paint versions of that gharial, look here:

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

interestingly: they are both marked with 1996 - otherwise I would suspect that one version is from the India set, the other from croc set, but it seems that they are just both paint variations from the croc set. Or they didn't change the year on the belly, but that is unlikely, since others like the bat-eared fox have different years when used in different sets.

Froggie wrote:

there are two different paint versions of that gharial, look here:

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

interestingly: they are both marked with 1996 - otherwise I would suspect that one version is from the India set, the other from croc set, but it seems that they are just both paint variations from the croc set. Or they didn't change the year on the belly, but that is unlikely, since others like the bat-eared fox have different years when used in different sets.

Thats interesting :)

Froggie wrote:

there are two different paint versions of that gharial, look here:

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

interestingly: they are both marked with 1996 - otherwise I would suspect that one version is from the India set, the other from croc set, but it seems that they are just both paint variations from the croc set. Or they didn't change the year on the belly, but that is unlikely, since others like the bat-eared fox have different years when used in different sets.

The snout in the catalog photo is decidedly longer and narrower, though--and lacks any of the dorsal markings seen on the TAI green Tomistoma.

In whcih case--there may be a gavial out there that was not part of the crocodiles set. Or a mould was made, but they didn't use it.

sometimes the models differ from the catalog pictures, extreme examples are the small celebes macaque or the big orangutan.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Weird thing, maybe somewhere are some unique models to find, that were only made as a single model for the catalog. Well wouldn't this be a challenge to find these...
maybe the catalog gharial has the same fate?

not to mention the standing small grizzly:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

They definitely improved the standing grizzly before production!

So yeah, they probably just subbed the pre-existing Tomistoma instead of actually making the true gharial.

First post updated and with the incredible contributions of all friends, we are only missing these figures:
- Woodboring beetle from Exotic Beetles bulk
- Ring-Tailed Lemur from Lemurs and Prosimiansbulk
- Tiger, Javan rhino and chital from the Asian National Parks
- Some cats and dinosaurs from their respective bulks

Is it possible that the unnumbered guereza from Beatrice is also a figurine of the (unknown) african forest national parc is?

widukind wrote:

Is it possible that the unnumbered guereza from Beatrice is also a figurine of the (unknown) african forest national parc is?

Almost for sure, no number, same year, coerent fauna.

Roger wrote:

widukind wrote:

Is it possible that the unnumbered guereza from Beatrice is also a figurine of the (unknown)  african forest national parc is?

Almost for sure, no number, same year, coerent fauna.

Than we have 4 figurines. Than it could be that a few secrets exists.

widukind wrote:

Roger wrote:

widukind wrote:

Is it possible that the unnumbered guereza from Beatrice is also a figurine of the (unknown)  african forest national parc is?

Almost for sure, no number, same year, coerent fauna.

Than we have 4 figurines. Than it could be that a few secrets exists.

Play Visions was a bin-figure company. They didn't do secret figures, because the figures were in open containers to go through--or, later, in box sets.

Sometimes figures were swapped between sets, or the paint schemese changed, but that was about it.

sbell wrote:

widukind wrote:

Roger wrote:

widukind wrote:

Is it possible that the unnumbered guereza from Beatrice is also a figurine of the (unknown)  african forest national parc is?

Almost for sure, no number, same year, coerent fauna.

Than we have 4 figurines. Than it could be that a few secrets exists.

Play Visions was a bin-figure company. They didn't do secret figures, because the figures were in open containers to go through--or, later, in box sets.

Sometimes figures were swapped between sets, or the paint schemese changed, but that was about it.

I dont mean it like japanese series. But there are 4 not numbered and rare figurines. If they are from a set like other PV figurines so it could be that the set included a few figurines that we dont know because all the other sets include around 8 figurines.

Andreas, you're probably right, don't forget the mysterious leopard - painting is rather poor, not as great and intense as usual with PV. But it is a bit bigger, like the guereza, maybe it is from the same set?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It could be from very early sets--like K&M and even Safari, which didn't include the same amounts of information on their earliest small figures.

Although the 1999 is clearly visible...so perhaps it was an outsourced set? That leopard is definitely not up to the expected PV style.

Not long time ago, when this topic started, we were terribly confused about how Play Visions were grouped and a big part of the figures we know today were just neglected. The work here developed is such amazing and now I am glad that one of the few doubts that still remains is related with this group of African animal figures just marked 1999. I hope Andreas is right and that it may mean that we still have some more PV figures to find... I am positive too that we may find some more surprises if we keep working together as we have done all these years. Not only regarding PV but also several other brands.
I agree that the 1999 leopard is not consistent in quality but it is consistent in the way it is marked and also in size, I guess. So, it may belong to the same set or just a loose figure of another unknown set.

The style and size of the leopard and the guereza is not so typical PV. But the forest buffalo it is. So it is a secret again :)