What are your thoughts on the Monsternomicon?

[frogglesmash]

Have any of you looked at Privateer Press' Monternomicon and of you have what did you think of it? And while you're at it, what are your thoughts on the Iron Kingdoms books in general?

Edit: Fixed the title.

[Laurent]

Have any of you looked at Privateer Press' Monternomicon and of you have what did you think of it? And while you're at it, what are your thoughts on the Iron Kingdoms books in general?

I have the first book and it's great. Monsters are described "in character and in context" by an adventurer. There's little picture so you can see the size of the monster relative to human size (which is great and should be in every bestiary !).
Most monster could fit any setting but some are specific and wont suit a typical fantasy setting (for example there's some sort of steampunk robo-lich, if I remember right...).

I have most 1st party/3rd party bestiaries for 3.0/3.5/pathfinder (I'm a monster collector, gotta catch them all :D ) and it's still one of my favourite. The art remind me of the style of the choose your own adventure books, and even black and white, I love it.

[weckar]

I still cannot look at the title without thinking it is mis-spelled...

[Palanan]

According to the Amazon listing (https://www.amazon.com/Monsternomicon-Privateer-Press-Viktor-Pendrake/dp/0970697031/) and the cover image, it’s spelled Monsternomicon.

I assume this is 3.0 content? How would some of these creatures hold up in Pathfinder?