Thoughts on this trilobite?

[Archiveit]

Hello, this is my first post here.  I've been collecting fossils for a long time and I've been questioning some of them for a while now, so I figured I would post some of them here for evaluation, and I'm starting with this trilobite. 

 

I purchased this trilobite on online about 20 years ago.  It was described as an Acadoparadoxides fossil from Erfund, Morocco, and the fossil is about 11 inches long.  Some of the matrix is definitely manmade, as if the stone were broken and then repaired and reinforced with some other material.  I'm curious if the trilobite looks to be all original, partially original with some artificial repair work, or if the entire thing is a fake?  Please let me know if you want more pics.  Thanks.

[Archiveit]

Here's a pic of the back.  You can see the crack lines and the differing materials.

[Tidgy's Dad]

The broken matrix is not in itself a worry, as this often happens during extraction or the breaking of a nodule to find a trilobite. The rock is then glued back together and prepped. Though not so often with this type of trilo. 

And i do think it's from Erfoud, as in that's where it was made. Erfoud is the centre for genuine, restored and faked Moroccan fossils, but I don't think these Cambrian giants are found in the area. 

Looks to me as if this specimen is mostly, if not quite entirely, sculpted from clay, i'm afraid. 

[Archiveit]

45 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

The broken matrix is not in itself a worry, as this often happens during extraction or the breaking of a nodule to find a trilobite. The rock is then glued back together and prepped. Though not so often with this type of trilo. 

And i do think it's from Erfoud, as in that's where it was made. Erfoud is the centre for genuine, restored and faked Moroccan fossils, but I don't think these Cambrian giants are found in the area. 

Looks to me as if this specimen is mostly, if not quite entirely, sculpted from clay, i'm afraid. 

Thanks, that is what I kind of suspected.  I was holding out hope that it may have been at least partially original.

[Wrangellian]

2 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

The broken matrix is not in itself a worry, as this often happens during extraction or the breaking of a nodule to find a trilobite. The rock is then glued back together and prepped. Though not so often with this type of trilo. 

And i do think it's from Erfoud, as in that's where it was made. Erfoud is the centre for genuine, restored and faked Moroccan fossils, but I don't think these Cambrian giants are found in the area. 

Looks to me as if this specimen is mostly, if not quite entirely, sculpted from clay, i'm afraid. 

Are you sure? Looking closely, I see details that would be difficult to sculpt from a raw block of clay/rock. I figure maybe it was cast from a real specimen, but then wouldn't there be bubbles? 

Certainly parts of it are sculpted.

[taj]

yep , too perfect to my taste

[Tidgy's Dad]

34 minutes ago, Wrangellian said:

Are you sure? Looking closely, I see details that would be difficult to sculpt from a raw block of clay/rock. I figure maybe it was cast from a real specimen, but then wouldn't there be bubbles? 

Certainly parts of it are sculpted.

I am never sure about anything. 

But, yes, most of this is fabricated, there may possibly be some small element of an original in places though. 

[Wrangellian]

Looking at the bottom, it appears to have been (re)assembled from several chunks, with missing material in between having been filled. If it were 100% a sculpture or cast, this would be more uniform, wouldn't it? Or do they add chunks of rock just to fool ya?

The realistic details I am seeing make up most of the thorax and genal spines, but much of the cephalon lacks these details and I would assume this means it was sculpted. Maybe the pygidium as well.

[Wrangellian]

What about that long 'negative crack' down the axial lobe - would that be an artifact of preservation (crushed exoskeleton) or could it be due to a break or seam in the mould used to cast the thing?

[Huntonia]

It definitely seems more fake to me than real, hard to judge, it's much easier to determine with the fossil in hand. The left genal spine as well as certain sections of the left pleural and axial lobe may be real. The entire right side of the cephalon and the vast majority of the right pleural lobe seem carved to me.  Those cracks on the axial lobe may be a seam where fake meets authentic sections, it may also be where some sort of putty or resin was added on top. Or who knows it could be intentional flaws added to make the piece seem genuine, the people who manufacture fakes are sometimes very creative in selling their products, when I was at my local mineral and gem show a few months back I saw a dicranurus that was 100% fake (obvious cast) but yet had multiple repaired cracks running through it which may be enough to trick many into assuming it is real. 

 

Here's a great resource, showing some red flags and a look at how convincing some fakes have become: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/collect/faketrilobites3.htm

[Wrangellian]

It is hard to judge from a photo only. But it does have enough odd features that make it fishy, I would not have taken a chance on it.

[Archiveit]

12 hours ago, Huntonia said:

It definitely seems more fake to me than real, hard to judge, it's much easier to determine with the fossil in hand. The left genal spine as well as certain sections of the left pleural and axial lobe may be real. The entire right side of the cephalon and the vast majority of the right pleural lobe seem carved to me.  Those cracks on the axial lobe may be a seam where fake meets authentic sections, it may also be where some sort of putty or resin was added on top. Or who knows it could be intentional flaws added to make the piece seem genuine, the people who manufacture fakes are sometimes very creative in selling their products, when I was at my local mineral and gem show a few months back I saw a dicranurus that was 100% fake (obvious cast) but yet had multiple repaired cracks running through it which may be enough to trick many into assuming it is real. 

 

Here's a great resource, showing some red flags and a look at how convincing some fakes have become: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/collect/faketrilobites3.htm

Thank you very much, that is a great link.  And thank you to everyone else replying as well.

 

As I was looking at it it seemed to me that the left side looked better than the right as well, and if anything were good it would probably be there.  Here's another shot of that area if it helps. 

[Wrangellian]

Yes, that wrinkly texture (and the cracked texture) were some of the features I was noticing that seemed to indicate authentic spots... or at least not purely sculpted - I suppose those could be cast from a real original but I don't know.

[Huntonia]

The smooth texture on the right side of the cephalon rules out a cast from an original I'd say. I think we're looking at a partial, damaged specimen where the missing sections were carved and sculpted. You can see how the tips of a number of the pleural spines are a slightly different color, indicating they were likely added after the fact. 

[LordTrilobite]

Hard to tell how much, but I think most of this looks like a sculpture.

[Archiveit]

Thank you again for the new replies.  It sounds like the consensus is that most of this is fake with a possibility a little bit of real fossil on the left side.

[Tidgy's Dad]

It could be that a little of the right side genal spine is real as well, hence the two halves being bodged together.