Help, are they real?

[Paleorunner]

Hi, I just saw these articles, and I wanted to make sure they are real.
The vertebrae of Onchosaurus seem correct, but I am concerned about Otodus' teeth, and that of Mosasaur. 

 

Mosasaur 2.2 ctms.(Just the tooth ). and Otodus 5 ctms.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Paleorunner

[Ludwigia]

They are both ok in my opinion. It would be a waste of time for anyone to falsify such common fossils.

[Paleorunner]

46 minutes ago, Ludwigia said:

Both are fine in my opinion. It would be a waste of time for someone to falsify such common fossils.

 

Thank you.
I also thought about it, but I don't even trust my shadow. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by Paleorunner

[Gareth_]

2 hours ago, Paleorunner said:

I am concerned about Otodus' teeth, and that of Mosasaur. 

 

 

In future, a vernier or ruler are better for us to see size. I have no idea how big that coin is, much like you'd have no idea how big my country's 10c or 50c piece is
From other O. obliquus teeth I've seen they look small-medium but at the medium end of the scale. That's not a criticism, they're a nice shark to add to any collection and not expensive in the size you're looking at. I have them ranging from 23mm to 87mm (slant height). But they do look in reasonably good condition apart from the broken tip and cusplet missing (unbelievably common). On both the top left and bottom right tooth I can see a crack going through the bottom of the crown into the root (top left is more obvious). Has that section broken off and been repaired? Hard to tell without seeing the labial side or better yet, handling them. 
Apart from that, I agree with @Ludwigia, they're are too common to fake. Restore, yes (often the restoration to the root is terrible)

[Gareth_]

These are on a local buy/sell page. Personally, these examples would never get close to being put into my collection. They are being sold as restored (hence the arrows)

 

 

[Paleorunner]

4 minutes ago, Gareth_ said:

In future, a vernier or ruler are better for us to see size. I have no idea how big that coin is, much like you'd have no idea how big my country's 10c or 50c piece is
From other O. obliquus teeth I've seen they look small-medium but at the medium end of the scale. That's not a criticism, they're a nice shark to add to any collection and not expensive in the size you're looking at. I have them ranging from 23mm to 87mm (slant height). But they do look in reasonably good condition apart from the broken tip and cusplet missing (unbelievably common). On both the top left and bottom right tooth I can see a crack going through the bottom of the crown into the root (top left is more obvious). Has that section broken off and been repaired? Hard to tell without seeing the labial side or better yet, handling them. 
Apart from that, I agree with @Ludwigia, they're are too common to fake. Restore, yes (often the restoration to the root is terrible)

 

Thanks for the reply.
The photos are those that the seller has, I was only worried that they were fasos, that is why I did not include the size in centimeters.
Mosasaur 2.2 ctms.(Just the tooth ). and Otodus 5 ctms.

Thank you very much for the information.

2 minutes ago, Gareth_ said:

These are on a local buy/sell page. Personally, these examples would never get close to being put into my collection. They are being sold as restored (hence the arrows)

 

 

Thank you very much for the information.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Paleorunner

[Gareth_]

4 minutes ago, Paleorunner said:

 

Thanks for the reply.
The photos are those that the seller has, I was only worried that they were fasos, that is why I did not include the size in centimeters.
Mosasaur 2.2 ctms.(Just the tooth ). and Otodus 5 ctms.

Ah all good then.... it is frustrating when a seller uses a coin, it's hard to get a true idea of size especially when it's a fossil you really want! 

50mm, pretty much exactly where I assumed they'd be

Have you got any other teeth from the Otodontidae family? Just being nosey, it's a family of sharks I have quite a few fossils from!