Spinosaurus Claw? I mean, "another spinosaurus claw?"

[sneakyelf]

Spino claw with X-ray?  Pure composite? Any other thoughts?

 

[Paleostoric]

To me, the grains and blood groove look off. There's multiple spots that look like a good amount of restoration. I would wait for more experienced opinions to get a final verdict though. 

[LabRatKing]

The proximal end is full reconstruction. The rest is definitely had assembly work. From what I can see in the first image, there is a lot of rough grinder work. There is spongiform in the surface of some sections. And quite a bit of stain work done. Additionally, the “x-ray” is of a different specimen. I’m confident this is a composite composite, though close ups of the dorsal distal end would likely clinch it. UV would also help.

[sneakyelf]

I assure you the X-ray is that specimen.

 Here are UV photos. and list end photos.

[LabRatKing]

I just put them up on a real screen, so I retract the X-ray...couldnt match up on the phone screen...however those close ups indicate to me there is composite work for sure. UV is inconclusive, which is 50/50 with Morocco specials. However, it looks to me like most of it belongs together...I’m just estimating, but discounting the proximal, I bet around 60% was found together.

 

This is a Morocco specimen I assume?

 

Its a nice display piece in my opinion, though there’s some tooth and nail experts that will likely weigh in soon.

[FranzBernhard]

Thanks for the informative pics and the insights!

I am soooo happy that I only self collect...

Franz Bernhard

[Troodon]

A good portion of it looks fabricated and reconstructed.  Some sections may include real spino parts to make the Xray look authentic.   I would pass for something that gives you a higher degree of confidence its real.

 

[LordTrilobite]

Partially carved at the least. It looks to be painted as well.

 

I would avoid this.

[minnbuckeye]

9 hours ago, LabRatKing said:

x-ray” is of a different specimen

 

I tend to disagree with this. But the radiology employed absolutely shows how "mangled" the specimen was initially, bringing up the possibility of it being a mix of bone. It then took exceptional human intervention to get it to look like it does now.

[Top Trilo]

 

 

Here's a side by side comparison of the claw in normal light and in the x-ray

 

[LabRatKing]

1 hour ago, minnbuckeye said:

 

I tend to disagree with this. But the radiology employed absolutely shows how "mangled" the specimen was initially, bringing up the possibility of it being a mix of bone. It then took exceptional human intervention to get it to look like it does now.

Yup, see above. Earlier statement was retracted due to small screen.

[JohnJ]

Given the x-ray and the uniformity of color, isn't it entirely possible this piece is made of unrelated bone bits?

[LabRatKing]

38 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

Given the x-ray and the uniformity of color, isn't it entirely possible this piece is made of unrelated bone bits?

I agree with this. After giving it the once over here is what I see:

Top photo

Blue areas are obvious composite work.

Red and Orange circles show heavy handed grinder work.

X-ray

Red areas are fragments which do not belong and have had work to make them fit.

Distal end orange fragments likely go together or are from similar sized specimens.

Green question mark and dots are composite work, but could be anything.

Distal ends

Red shows visible chunkosaur and chiplodocus bits with the bonding material readily visible under the stain/paint/lac

Blue lines show areas of heavy grinding work.

 

So, I stand by heavy reconstruction and compositing, with the caveat that the sections marked orange, with no green, may be from the same find. Also, given the Moroccan export laws, this would have to be a composite piece to be available for sale. (That whole "non-valuable specimens" bit)

 

Only way to be sure would be to tear it apart/ take sections/ etc.

I bet a CT scan would show some really interesting stuff about how composites are made.