Bivalve Shells

[softiesongbird]

I recently came across a cool-looking piece with three different shells close together in a matrix, but despite my attempt to Google some pointers while I was pondering if I wanted it or not, I'm simply not trained up enough to determine if fossils are real. There's some parts that some articles were talking about that make me think it could be real, and others that make me think not so much... I have a feeling the matrix maybe isn't the original, but I'm hoping perhaps the shells themselves are still fossilized? But I'm really not sure -- anyways, the pictures I took are below. I hope they give you enough information/context to help me out, and that there aren't a whole bunch of superfluous details that I chose to focus on! Sorry for how big and in the way of the post they are, I'm still trying to figure out how to make posts look nicer ^^;

 

 

[Myrmica]

They seem real enough: scallops, an oyster, and barnacles.  Where are they from?

[Thomas.Dodson]

I don't see any red flags and that includes the matrix which is most likely real and original based on the residual matrix on the shells and the way it conforms. As mentioned, those open topped ones are barnacles. Any information on locality?

[softiesongbird]

43 minutes ago, Myrmica said:

They seem real enough: scallops, an oyster, and barnacles.  Where are they from?

 

39 minutes ago, Thomas.Dodson said:

I don't see any red flags and that includes the matrix which is most likely real and original based on the residual matrix on the shells and the way it conforms. As mentioned, those open topped ones are barnacles. Any information on locality?

 

Ah, unfortunately these were bought from an antique store instead of an in-person vendor, and the little info card didn't mention anything about where they were found. Just essentially said "shell in matrix." I may be able to find contact info for the seller, though, so I'll try to post an update on that later

If you could clarify one thing, perhaps, about the flat scallop -- is it not a red flag that there seems to be a gap on where it connects to the matrix in some places? That was one of the things that I thought seemed wrong, made it look glued-on to me almost. Is that something that happens with regular wear, like rocks forming holes and dimples from water erosion? Or are there just some fossils that don't get cemented into the matrix in every nook and cranny? Sorry if that seems a stupid question, I've not had the chance to take any classes on identifying this sort of thing and unfortunately have trouble learning such things through internet searching haha

[Thomas.Dodson]

2 minutes ago, softiesongbird said:

 

 

Ah, unfortunately these were bought from an antique store instead of an in-person vendor, and the little info card didn't mention anything about where they were found. Just essentially said "shell in matrix." I may be able to find contact info for the seller, though, so I'll try to post an update on that later

If you could clarify one thing, perhaps, about the flat scallop -- is it not a red flag that there seems to be a gap on where it connects to the matrix in some places? That was one of the things that I thought seemed wrong, made it look glued-on to me almost. Is that something that happens with regular wear, like rocks forming holes and dimples from water erosion? Or are there just some fossils that don't get cemented into the matrix in every nook and cranny? Sorry if that seems a stupid question, I've not had the chance to take any classes on identifying this sort of thing and unfortunately have trouble learning such things through internet searching haha

Hmm, I see what you mean. It's possible the flat one was removed or accidentally separated at some point and then reattached to the matrix. Some of the matrix underneath appears broken so this might be what happened.