Mochaccino Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 Hello, new member here. I just purchased this heteromorph ammonite from what's considered a reputable website but I've started to get concerned on the authenticity of this specimen due to the heterogeneous coloration (some places dark, some places light). Is there a chance there's some fake pieces as a composite or perhaps heavy restoration? Also it was listed as eubostrychoceras indopacificum, but it looks different from photos of other such specimens. It seems more like a Nostoceras malagasyense, but perhaps I'm just mistaken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwigia Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 It's not unusual for colors to vary within one fossil, so my guess is that it's real. Sorry I can't help with id. Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger http://www.steinkern.de/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 I cant help with id either and ive seen many of these and this looks to be one of the better ones but also looks like alot of the ribs have had some help. They carve out the ribs with a round rotary barrel type grinder to enhance the specimen and make it look better. RB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mochaccino Posted November 30, 2021 Author Share Posted November 30, 2021 6 hours ago, Ludwigia said: It's not unusual for colors to vary within one fossil, so my guess is that it's real. Sorry I can't help with id. I see, thanks! 3 hours ago, RJB said: I cant help with id either and ive seen many of these and this looks to be one of the better ones but also looks like alot of the ribs have had some help. They carve out the ribs with a round rotary barrel type grinder to enhance the specimen and make it look better. RB May I ask what tells you this? Parts that look too perfect/artificial? I would really hate if a lot of this specimen was carved like a sculpture as that ruins the authenticity for me. Is this grounds for a refund? I bought it from a reputable dealer who was praised by this forum as well so I'm surprised there was no mention of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 I cant tell you if this is grounds for a refund or not. As for what tells me this? Look closely at the area's that look new with some magnification if need be and see if you can see any tool marks. RB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 I am looking at where the ribs meet the matrix and it looks pretty good to me. But then that is all dependent on the photos. It could be hard to say for sure without the specimen in hand. I see RJB has replied while I am typing... he might have some more insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mochaccino Posted November 30, 2021 Author Share Posted November 30, 2021 Some help with ID please. Purchased this from a reputable online vendor. This was listed as eubostrychoceras indopacificum, but it looks different from photos of other such specimens. It seems more like a nostoceras malagasyense, but perhaps I'm just mistaken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 I've seen this posted before. Yesterday? I think it had some responses too. Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 Topics merged. @Mochaccino please restrict requests for identification to one thread per specimen. Also keep in mind that the focus is always on the specimen, and that the reputation of the seller is immaterial to determining authenticity. ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 I'm in the Nostoceras camp on this one. I've seen some that were almost totally carved but this one seems OK as far as I can tell from the photos. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mochaccino Posted November 30, 2021 Author Share Posted November 30, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Kane said: Topics merged. @Mochaccino please restrict requests for identification to one thread per specimen. Also keep in mind that the focus is always on the specimen, and that the reputation of the seller is immaterial to determining authenticity. Got it, sorry about that. I figured since I also wanted an ID I should ask separately in the ID thread. I'm also just alarmed and distressed at my specimen potentially being faked. Edited November 30, 2021 by Mochaccino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mochaccino Posted November 30, 2021 Author Share Posted November 30, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, RJB said: I cant tell you if this is grounds for a refund or not. As for what tells me this? Look closely at the area's that look new with some magnification if need be and see if you can see any tool marks. RB Ok, I'll take a closer look when I get home. Just so I know what I'm looking for, what would said toolmarks look like? Is this a common practice? 5 hours ago, jpc said: I am looking at where the ribs meet the matrix and it looks pretty good to me. But then that is all dependent on the photos. It could be hard to say for sure without the specimen in hand. I see RJB has replied while I am typing... he might have some more insight. 3 hours ago, FossilDAWG said: I'm in the Nostoceras camp on this one. I've seen some that were almost totally carved but this one seems OK as far as I can tell from the photos. Don Thanks. @FossilDAWG OK, as in not "completely" sculpted? Does it seem to you there's potentially sculpting/carving of the ribs? Edited November 30, 2021 by Mochaccino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caterpillar Posted December 1, 2021 Share Posted December 1, 2021 It is indeed a Nostoceras. Eubostrychoceras has a different shape. And it is indeed an authentic specimen. This species is found by the hundreds in southern Madagascar. The difference in coloring is due to ferrous oxides. When there is restoration, it is often at the level of the internal towers of the turricone http://www.paleotheque.fr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mochaccino Posted December 1, 2021 Author Share Posted December 1, 2021 8 hours ago, caterpillar said: It is indeed a Nostoceras. Eubostrychoceras has a different shape. And it is indeed an authentic specimen. This species is found by the hundreds in southern Madagascar. The difference in coloring is due to ferrous oxides. When there is restoration, it is often at the level of the internal towers of the turricone I see, thanks for the input and identification! Does it seem like there's carving/sculpting of the ribs to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mochaccino Posted December 1, 2021 Author Share Posted December 1, 2021 (edited) Took some close-up photos of the turricone. It seems a little odd to me that there isn't a very sharp distinction between adjacent whorls, almost like they were carved from one piece. I don't know if this is typical for this species, if it is some type of Nostoceras. Can anyone confirm my suspicions? Edited December 1, 2021 by Mochaccino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randyw Posted December 1, 2021 Share Posted December 1, 2021 (edited) I could easily be wrong but i suspect theres some carving going on. Especially where the grooves go past the edge of the whorl… but i’ll wait for the experts opinions Edited December 1, 2021 by Randyw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caterpillar Posted December 2, 2021 Share Posted December 2, 2021 13 hours ago, Mochaccino said: I see, thanks for the input and identification! Does it seem like there's carving/sculpting of the ribs to you? Yes, with these new photos, we can see that the ribs have been carved on the turricone. It is a more difficult area to prepare because the ribs are thin. Often, the preparers do not distinguish them during clearance and must then reproduce them by sculpting them. And here, we see that it is not too coherent 1 http://www.paleotheque.fr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mochaccino Posted December 2, 2021 Author Share Posted December 2, 2021 (edited) 18 hours ago, Randyw said: I could easily be wrong but i suspect theres some carving going on. Especially where the grooves go past the edge of the whorl… but i’ll wait for the experts opinions 9 hours ago, caterpillar said: Yes, with these new photos, we can see that the ribs have been carved on the turricone. It is a more difficult area to prepare because the ribs are thin. Often, the preparers do not distinguish them during clearance and must then reproduce them by sculpting them. And here, we see that it is not too coherent I see, that is appalling to hear, thank you for your help. Frankly I feel scammed and will be requesting a return/refund from the seller, or even a chargeback as a last resort. Edited December 2, 2021 by Mochaccino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now