Texas tyrannosaurus tooth

[Per Christian]

I recently saw this 2” tooth labelled as Tyrannosaurus rex from the javelina formation in Texas. How does it look? I am under the impression that this is very rare so please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guns]

IMO the serration shape look wrong to me . look heavily restored . also the enamel look painted as well judging by these photos . but i might be very wrong . @Troodon  

[Per Christian]

7 minutes ago, Guns said:

IMO the serration shape look wrong to me . look heavily restored . also the enamel look painted as well judging by these photos . but i might be very wrong . @Troodon  

That's worrisome.. thanks for your time and feedback. 

[Guns]

Just now, Per Christian said:

That's worrisome.. thanks for your time and feedback. 

 i could be wrong. other member can definitely help you about authenticity of this tooth .

 

cheers

Guns

[Per Christian]

1 minute ago, Guns said:

 i could be wrong. other member can definitely help you about authenticity of this tooth .

 

cheers

Guns

I'm very curious as to what others think. I appreciate your feedback!

[Troodon]

The real problem with any tooth from the Javelina is an accurate Provenance.  I believe most of the private localities are from the Terlingua area where the Javelina Fm overlies the Aguja Fm.(Campanian).  Tyrannosaurid teeth from the Aguja are vastly more common than Javelina.  So its very important to know that the digger/seller knew how to differentiate between the two formation because the outcrops are adjacent to each other and if they are knowledgeable about the different faunas.   

 

Back to the tooth...its a Tyrannosaurid tooth that looks to have very heavy restoration on both sides but not the very base, unsure of the tip but looks restored.  I would need a closup of the serrations to see the level of their restoration, if any.  Its also not out of the question that most everything above the base has been added.   I would recommend that every buyer of theropod teeth get a good UV light and this is one case where it worth the price of one.   Anyway the tooth might have been found in the Javelina but at this point there is no way to really know or be able to positively identify the tooth as Campanian or Maastrichtian.   It does have more of the profile/serrations of a Campanian tyrannosaurid but thats a guess.

 

Either way I would anyway avoid it given the amount of restoration on it, its excessive. 

 

 

 

[Per Christian]

3 minutes ago, Troodon said:

The real problem with any tooth from the Javelina is an accurate Provenance.  I believe most of the private localities are from Terlingua area where the Javelina Fm overlies the Aguja Fm.(Campanian).  Tyrannosaurid teeth from the Aguja are vastly more common than Javelina.  So its very important to know that the digger/seller knew how to differentiate the two formation because the outcrops are adjacent to each other and if they are knowledgeable about the different faunas.   

 

Back to the tooth...its a Tyrannosaurid tooth that looks to have very heavy restoration on both sides not the very base, unsure of the tip but looks restored.  I would need a closup of the serrations to see the level of their restoration, if any.  Its also not out of the question that everything above the base has been added.   I would recommend that every buyer of theropod teeth get a good UV light and this is one case where it worth the price of one.   Anyway the tooth might have been found in the Javelina but at this point there is no way to really know or be able to positively identify the tooth as Campanian or Maastrichtian.   It does have more of the profile/serrations of a Campanian tyrannosaurid but thats a guess.

 

Either way I would anyway avoid it given the amount of restoration on it, its excessive. 

 

 

 

Thanks! This saved me a really bad purchase. I will avoid this tooth then. @Troodon you're amazing with your feedbacks. It's humbling what knowledge you have and i greatly appreciate you sharing it here. Thanks again