Jump to content

Is this a Pachydesmoceras Ammonite?


Recommended Posts

Hello friends,

 

Full transparency here - I am inquiring about this piece from a trade dealer who I will not mention as per guidelines. They have listed the following specifications:

 

Genus: Pachydesmoceras Ammonite. 
Age: Cretaceous (Cenomanian to Turonian).
Origin: Taboulouart, Atlas Range, Morocco.

Size: Height: 40 CM x Width (diameter): 50 CM x Depth: 11 CM

 

I am very new to fossils and so am having a hard time verifying these claims. Is anyone able to offer an opinion as to whether this is what they says it is and if it is in the condition claimed? I have seen several other pieces that look near identical to my eyes - is anyone able to provide any insight as to specifically what to look for in a piece like this when identifying it and determining its condition? Are specimens in this size and condition rare? 

 

Thank you,

Ali

 

 d.thumb.jpg.1f6c93ed4c7512c70246f33ae21bded9.jpgc.thumb.jpg.2a1ecb1b56a6d35f9a78eaa994154eee.jpgb.thumb.jpg.f0578b2415d20fb795a84493d8a4d5f3.jpg

Edited by _Prism_
removed: " The dealer is fairly well reputed and has claimed that this specimen has been conserved to a museum standard - "
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad

It looks like it could well be from Morocco, and the way they have carved out the umbilicus and created the innermost whirls is typical. 

I don't think it looks much like Pachydesmoceras, though I could be wrong. 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19

Just a reminder to keep the discussion about the fossils, NOT the dealers.

Their reputations have no bearing on the fossil itself.

Dealers can be misinformed like anyone else.  ;)

 

That said, the area mentioned by Adam is certainly off looking.

 

b.thumb.jpg.f0578b2415d20fb795a84493d8a4d5f3.jpg

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

That said, the area mentioned by Adam is certainly off looking.

 

 

 

Thanks for the input Tim. Could you clarify what you mean by "off looking" - i.e did you mean off looking for a Pachydesmoceras specimen or were you strictly referring to the quality of preparation?  

Edited by _Prism_
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

It looks like it could well be from Morocco, and the way they have carved out the umbilicus and created the innermost whirls is typical. 

I don't think it looks much like Pachydesmoceras, though I could be wrong. 

 

Apologies as I'm new here, but how is the carving / preparation work here typical? If it is not a Pachydesmoceras, what do you think it could be? 

Thanks! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19

The apparent carving of the middle whorls/umbiculus that Adam mentioned.

If you click on the pic I posted, I outlined what looks off to me.  ;)

  • Thank You 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19

Typical carving seen in this photo:

 

IMG_4301.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
1 hour ago, _Prism_ said:

 

Apologies as I'm new here, but how is the carving / preparation work here typical? If it is not a Pachydesmoceras, what do you think it could be? 

Thanks! 

Moroccan preparators commonly carve a centre into an ammonite specimen that is not actually preserved because it traditional and they are of the belief it makes the ammonite look more complete and will thus sell better. 

I don't know the species of this ammonite. 

  • Thank You 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Typical carving seen in this photo:

 

IMG_4301.jpg

 

Thanks Tim - a picture truly is worth a thousand words! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Moroccan preparators commonly carve a centre into an ammonite specimen that is not actually preserved because it traditional and they are of the belief it makes the ammonite look more complete and will thus sell better. 

 

Thank you for the clarification!

 

I'm curious as to whether the centre here was truly not preserved at all, or if they have done a poor job preparing it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19

Looks like it may have been a bit of both.

The center looks somewhat eroded, and worn.

The white marks visible in the center may be tool marks from attempted carving here.

Hard to tell from the pictures.
 

  • Thank You 1
  • I Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...