Is this a real fossil?

[Fossilartist]

I've seen the very helpful and detailed posts on finding fake keichosaurs, but I'd like second opinions on this so I can decide on buying it.

[DatFossilBoy]

Looks like a standard acid prep to me can’t see any resto from here.

maybe @Crazyhen can confirm?

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

The vertebrae and ribs have a little too little definition for me, which may mean it's been treated as it too harsh with either acid prep or metal brush (which,  I understand, is another common way to prep these fossils, often times in combination with other techniques). On the whole, though, this piece also looks good to me.

[Fossilartist]

12 minutes ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

The vertebrae and ribs have a little too little definition for me, which may mean it's been treated as it too harsh with either acid prep or metal brush (which,  I understand, is another common way to prep these fossils, often times in combination with other techniques). On the whole, though, this piece also looks good to me.

Yeah, the verts was what concerned me, thanks for the reply

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

5 minutes ago, Fossilartist said:

Yeah, the verts was what concerned me, thanks for the reply

 

Plenty of small detail in hands and feet, which is typically a good indication. And only very few of these fossils get the quality of preparation they deserve...

[Fossilartist]

17 minutes ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

Plenty of small detail in hands and feet, which is typically a good indication. And only very few of these fossils get the quality of preparation they deserve...

True I've seen, and owned ones that have clearly been hastily wire brushed for sale. I only bought it cost it was cheap and real. I see so many that look "improved" to increase display value.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

15 minutes ago, Fossilartist said:

True I've seen, and owned ones that have clearly been hastily wire brushed for sale. I only bought it cost it was cheap and real. I see so many that look "improved" to increase display value.

 

I know what you mean. But to me this looks natural. All the same, let's see what others have to say...

[Fossildude19]

I think there is quite a bit of paint on this item. 

 

Shows up as bright white in the negative images. 

 

 

 

 

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

1 hour ago, Fossildude19 said:

I think there is quite a bit of paint on this item. 

 

Shows up as bright white in the negative images.

 

Interesting technique! So you're saying the brightest white would be paint then? Where would you lay the cutoff?

[Top Trilo]

Does this imply the paint is just more black then the fossil itself? Since the whitest parts are just the darkest parts of the original image. Wouldn't shadows make this method not work?

[Fossildude19]

3 hours ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

Interesting technique! So you're saying the brightest white would be paint then? Where would you lay the cutoff?

 

Painting to enhance the worn down bones from prep is a very common practice on these Keichousaurs. I think the brightest whites are indicative of paint. 

Remember, when trying to ascertain amount of restoration, enhancement or fakery, it is quite difficult to do so via photographs. This is something that I believe helps to show some of the painted parts. 

 

3 hours ago, Top Trilo said:

Does this imply the paint is just more black then the fossil itself? Since the whitest parts are just the darkest parts of the original image. Wouldn't shadows make this method not work?

 

Yes, it does. But, keep in mind, this technique is by no means foolproof.  In my opinion, some of the lines are just a bit too crisp/fluid looking to me.

In many cases, this indicates to me that there has been some painting involved. 

 

I have nothing against this per se, I just would  (personally) rather have a more natural looking specimen, without finger bones or ribs painted over/in. 

These Keichousaur fossils can be awesome if carefully prepped, but that is not always the case with these. The grinding that usually happens on these is very destructive to the bones. 

 

I guess it ultimately depends on what your taste in fossils are: Beautiful complete specimens that may be enhanced, or natural, as found/prepped fossils.  

 

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

5 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

Painting to enhance the worn down bones from prep is a very common practice on these Keichousaurs. I think the brightest whites are indicative of paint. 

Remember, when trying to ascertain amount of restoration, enhancement or fakery, it is quite difficult to do so via photographs. This is something that I believe helps to show some of the painted parts.

 

8 hours ago, Top Trilo said:

Does this imply the paint is just more black then the fossil itself? Since the whitest parts are just the darkest parts of the original image. Wouldn't shadows make this method not work?

 

Yeah, I think the basic principle of this method is that it's often easier to see tone-variation in lighter colours than in darker ones. By inverting the colours in the photograph, you'll be able to see which areas have a uniform colour much more easily - the presumption here being, I understand, that the more homogenous a colour shows up, the more likely it is to be paint (however, indeed, shadows would cause issues for this method). Think about it: paint is supposed to be homogenous, while a fossil will not be by virtue of differences in mineralisation, naturally less dark (therefore, when inverted, less bright) colours, and less even surfaces. It all makes a lot of sense. As such, I find it a very elegant method to get the most out of as limited an information source as photographs typically are.

 

In most cases, however, I'd say that you can simply spot the painting by naked eye as well, simply because the gross of the Keichousaurus-specimens are so badly prepared. And while I must admit that I had my doubts about this specimen as well, I think it's just a bad prep-job. Fine details like the bones in hands and feet are typically very hard to paint with such detail, and therefore having correct anatomy there is a good indication of a specimen being original, at least in those areas. And while the vertebrae and ribs of the current specimen show little definition, the inverted photographs do show less uniform colouring and relief, if not on both sides, then at least on one side of the specimen. And if one side of the specimen is good like that and the overall shapes on the other match those of the good side, I'm willing to accept that in all likelihood the other side is good too, and that what gives us doubt about that particular side are just photographic artefacts (such as, for example, it being [more] exposed to the light source of the photograph). As such, the only place I would have some doubts about are the anterior caudal vertebrae, which look rather flat and uniform on both sides of the specimen.

 

5 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

I have nothing against this per se, I just would  (personally) rather have a more natural looking specimen, without finger bones or ribs painted over/in. 

These Keichousaur fossils can be awesome if carefully prepped, but that is not always the case with these. The grinding that usually happens on these is very destructive to the bones. 

 

I guess it ultimately depends on what your taste in fossils are: Beautiful complete specimens that may be enhanced, or natural, as found/prepped fossils.  

 

That having been said, I agree with Tim in that there are better specimens on the market and that I'd also prefer one with better preparation, leading to less doubt about what might be real and what might have been added on (apart from paint, sculpture is also not uncommon, I believe). In the end, though, it is a matter of taste, as well as personal budget and getting a lucky chance of finding a quality specimen you like.

[Crazyhen]

15 hours ago, DatFossilBoy said:

Looks like a standard acid prep to me can’t see any resto from here.

maybe @Crazyhen can confirm?

I agree with others that this is a acid and mechanically prepped Keichousaurus.  It is very obvious to see the corroded bones which appear dull in colour and texture.  If available, look for the better unprepped natural form like the one below.

[Fossildude19]

4 hours ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

Fine details like the bones in hands and feet are typically very hard to paint with such detail, and therefore having correct anatomy there is a good indication of a specimen being original, at least in those areas.

 

I would  respectfully disagree with this.

These guys are pretty good at painting the details. Here is one where it appears (to me) to have been painted. 

 

 

  

 

 

True, there maybe some bones underneath the paint, but there are different number of bones on each finger.

Could be some bones or parts of bones have been obliterated, or are still covered, but I remain skeptical. 

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

3 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

I would  respectfully disagree with this.

These guys are pretty good at painting the details. Here is one where it appears (to me) to have been painted. 

 

 

 

True, there maybe some bones underneath the paint, but there are different number of bones on each finger.

Could be some bones or parts of bones have been obliterated, or are still covered, but I remain skeptical.

 

I'd agree that your example indeed appears to be a quite obviously painted specimen, and that the paint does, indeed, seem to extend to the phalangi. That's quite some detailed work, I must say, and I wasn't aware that they could paint such fine details! Then again, they do seem to have dripped a lot of paint too, if you look at the central rib cage, which kind of contrasts to the fine detail of their paint application elsewhere... The paint is much more shiny than the bones in OP's specimen, however. If paint were used there, then a less homogenous matte paint would have needed to be used. All the same, good to know that fine details being present is not/no longer a guarantee of authenticity 

Edited May 29, 2021 by pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon