Keichousaurus - real, fake, altered?

[Wrangellian]

Came across this one and wondered if it was fake or doctored. I have my suspicions - for one, the legs look disproportionate, but I wouldn't know. I wouldn't mind having one of these if it's real and the price is right.

This is the only pic available... maybe not big enough to tell anything for sure? but I know some of you have a pretty good eye!

 

 

[Huntonia]

Not my area but it looks fishy to me.

@Crazyhen

[Fossildude19]

The feet look a bit big, and the skull doesn't look correct. 

Either bad prepping or enhancements.  hard to tell - so little detail in these photos. . 

[FFF]

Seen quite a few, they don't usually have much work done on them.

Edited August 1, 2020 by FFF

[indominus rex]

Have you got better pictures? Chinese Keichousaurus fossils are rarely faked as they are super common, occasionally they have a bit of work done to them because not all chinese fossil dealers can afford to buy air scribes. So most specimens are acid prepped.

[Fossildude19]

8 hours ago, indominus rex said:

Have you got better pictures? Chinese Keichousaurus fossils are rarely faked as they are super common, occasionally they have a bit of work done to them because not all chinese fossil dealers can afford to buy air scribes. So most specimens are acid prepped.

Actually, most of them are prepped with rotary tools, like wire brush attachments. 

That is what is responsible for the harsh looks and worn away bones on these. 

Acid prepping takes a long time, and while some are done this way, the majority of them are ground down with rotary tools.  

[Wrangellian]

OK, thanks everyone. I won't bother with this one.

[Crazyhen]

Looks to me a genuine specimen.  Acid and mechanically prepped, and poorly prepped.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

On 8/1/2020 at 5:56 AM, indominus rex said:

Chinese Keichousaurus fossils are rarely faked as they are super common, occasionally they have a bit of work done to them because not all chinese fossil dealers can afford to buy air scribes.

 

On 8/1/2020 at 2:15 PM, Fossildude19 said:

Actually, most of them are prepped with rotary tools, like wire brush attachments. 

That is what is responsible for the harsh looks and worn away bones on these. 

Acid prepping takes a long time, and while some are done this way, the majority of them are ground down with rotary tools.  

 

Though I've also heard that they're super-common, I think this statement should be moderated somewhat in that they might indeed be super-common, just not all very qualitative. Between the bad prepping - indeed using rotary tools - and just the fact that the fossil was not particularly well-preserved to start off with, you end up with a lot of specimens, just not too many high (or even decent) quality ones. Local preparators have a number of tricks up their sleeves to increase the visual appeal and completeness of these fossils, such as sculpting missing parts out of rock and applying paint to highlight these newly created or otherwise missing features. These are the two "enhancements" I've most frequently seen. And though these tricks are common in the fossil preparation trade in general, it is the amount of time, effort and attention (or rather lack thereof) that comes with the high throughput production of these fossils that makes them less qualitative compared to one prepped by a more skilled preparator.

 

In general, for these kinds of fossils: the greater and more anatomically correct the visible detail, the higher quality the prep-job. Though more expensive, these pieces are easier to judge for authenticity, as with lower-quality work it can be hard to tell whether inconsistencies are just poorly prepped parts or are covering up for some defect or another. You can then apply this same approach to individual parts of a specimen as well to see which parts may be authentic and which may have been tempered with. When asking for feedback on authenticity of Keichousaurus hui fossils it's therefore key to post clear and high-quality photographs, preferably including close-up shots of different parts of the specimen as well.

 

In this particular case, though, I'd say the specimen looks to be authentic. The head seems a bit over-prepped, but the neck seems in order. The tail-ending has been almost prepared away, but it's mid-section seems fine. Similarly, the extremities seem to be okay, but the digits (especially on the left-hand side) seem over-prepared - as may some of the lower arm/leg bones and hand and feet bones, if these haven't been "enhanced". I'm less sure about the torso (or part of the body and tail with ribs attached), as they generally seem to have the right shape, but bone colour seems to be missing in spots. Could be bad prep, or could be some sculpting going on - though the specimen doesn't appear to have been painted on.

 

Overall, I'd say not a bad specimen - a genuine one at least

[Bguild]

Hard to tell from the single photo, but to me it looks genuine, but with restoration as a result of quick/poor prep. The bottom half of the tail was almost prepped off and in a similar fashion, I’d say anything beyond the wrists was worn off and added in. The feet and digits don’t look right. Wouldn’t be surprised if there was some touching up of the mid section either. Bones towards the top of the tail look painted and the ribs/spine look a little too solid.

[aeon.rocks]

Quote

Though I've also heard that they're super-common, I think this statement should be moderated somewhat in that they might indeed be super-common, just not all very qualitative. Between the bad prepping - indeed using rotary tools - and just the fact that the fossil was not particularly well-preserved to start off with, you end up with a lot of specimens, just not too many high (or even decent) quality ones. ...

 

While that's true for all fossils, that doesn't change the fact that most of them are prepped fast commercially. Mehanicaly, with scribes and rotary tools. Acid prep takes too long. Since common, there's a good share of well preserved ones found.  But yes I agree: "bad prep" can have many reasons! Some of the best prepped fossils are often very easy to prep, not always - but have you ever seen a professionally bad preped GRF fish? With the right tools and an experienced preparator, it's impossible to prep a GRF fish bad, even if done commercially fast... Of course there are differences how well articulated or how deep in the layer (similar as 18. layer GRF fish, although GRF is easier) or if complete (or bad break) these Keichos are found etc. - but the best prepped ones are from the "softer layer" and usually split on the top of the plate, the ones in "harder layers" or deeper in matrix can require more time, are more sticky, there's less contrast, w/ similar hardness of matrix and bones, therefore not as nice to work with as the ones in softer shale (on the other hand softer shale requires "more care"), or would require a lot more time to prep decent - that's why grinded with rotary tools... I believe this one is from the harder layer, was split just on top however...