Real or Fake

[FossilAddict59]

This was a gift from a client who knows I collect fossils. I’ve not seen something like this before.  

Thank you for any help. 

 

 

[Guns]

look like a composited jaw . from the photo i saw sand glue area between the tooth crown and the root section.

 

Guns

[snolly50]

7 hours ago, Guns said:

sand glue area between the tooth crown and the root section.

@FossilAddict59

 

The original poster writes "not seen something like this." Not sure of the reference, but on a basic level; it's a mosasaur tooth with root and replacement tooth, from Morocco.

 

Yes, but I believe I see an area of smooth natural transition (images 4 & 5). If that perception is accurate, then the presence of sand in other areas does not establish monkey business. I would suggest the poster evaluate the juncture of crown/root with a 10X loupe. A glued on crown is perhaps the most common "improvement" seen.  Are the parts naturally joined or has the crown been affixed? The object is to determine if the crown and root are naturally associated. Good luck, have fun.  

[R0b]

Am I wrong when I think the tooth still embedded is curving the other way than the emerged tooth?

[Troodon]

58 minutes ago, R0b said:

Am I wrong when I think the tooth still embedded is curving the other way than the emerged tooth?

Correct, my guess is that the composite functional tooth was placed incorrectly 

[Coco]

It also drew my distrust.

 

Coco

[snolly50]

4 hours ago, R0b said:

curving the other way

Is it curving or is an edge still obscured by matrix infill? Both images displaying the replacement seem to show a generally spear-shaped tooth. I interpret this as a tooth still partially obscured. I can't really claim to tell from the photos; but if it were mine, I would dig in that socket.

 

How do others view the crown/root juncture seen in images 4 & 5? I believe I am seeing a section of natural attachment.

[R0b]

5 hours ago, snolly50 said:

How do others view the crown/root juncture seen in images 4 & 5? I believe I am seeing a section of natural attachment.

To me it seems repaired.

[snolly50]

5 hours ago, R0b said:

To me it seems repaired.

 

Thanks, I appreciate the perspective. This issue arises again and again. So, I think it's useful to explore member's views/strategies on assessment. Circled in the image below is the section I view as natural. If one area of the crown/root juncture is indeed natural; then the piece cannot be tampered or spurious. That is, at least in terms of a reattached or mismatched crown/root. 

 

It would be beneficial if other members reveal their evaluative process on this issue. This question often arises and any techniques utilized in determining authenticity (from a photo) would certainly be generally helpful.

 

[R0b]

2 hours ago, snolly50 said:

 

Thanks, I appreciate the perspective. This issue arises again and again. So, I think it's useful to explore member's views/strategies on assessment. Circled in the image below is the section I view as natural. If one area of the crown/root juncture is indeed natural; then the piece cannot be tampered or spurious. That is, at least in terms of a reattached or mismatched crown/root. 

 

It would be beneficial if other members reveal their evaluative process on this issue. This question often arises and any techniques utilized in determining authenticity (from a photo) would certainly be generally helpful.

 

the part you circled is original root the repair is below. Below in red the filled in area / gap between jaw and added tooth.

Edited December 19, 2021 by R0b
Image added

[FossilAddict59]

Thank you everyone for your great contributions, very much appreciated

[snolly50]

11 hours ago, R0b said:

part you circled is original root the repair is below.

Thanks, that nicely clarifies the observation informing your opinion.

[MarcoSr]

On 12/19/2021 at 8:18 AM, snolly50 said:

 

Thanks, I appreciate the perspective. This issue arises again and again. So, I think it's useful to explore member's views/strategies on assessment. Circled in the image below is the section I view as natural. If one area of the crown/root juncture is indeed natural; then the piece cannot be tampered or spurious. That is, at least in terms of a reattached or mismatched crown/root. 

 

It would be beneficial if other members reveal their evaluative process on this issue. This question often arises and any techniques utilized in determining authenticity (from a photo) would certainly be generally helpful.

 

I see the tooth as a composite, with a crown with a partial crown/root junction being added to a root (note I'm not even 100% convinced the bottom of the composite is indeed a root with an emerging tooth).  In the old days when they used water-soluble glue in the fakes, what to the naked eye looked like a beautiful, perfect root would dissolve away in water.  I would look at the specimen under UV light. If you looked at Moroccan specimens under UV light, you probably wouldn't buy most of them.

 

Marco Sr.

[snolly50]

6 hours ago, MarcoSr said:

see the tooth as a composite, with a crown with a partial crown/root junction being added to a root

Thanks, this is in harmony with @R0b's observation. My eye was drawn to the crown/root abutment, which I viewed as displaying a natural area. This observation prematurely ended my scrutiny and I failed to thoughtfully evaluate the "seam" below. Of course, if it were mine and in hand, a carbide needle would have already decided the nature of the narrow sandy area.

 

Dx via a photograph is a dicey business, yet it is one of the most valuable features of the Forum. I appreciate members taking the time to comment on these "is it real" inquiries.

 

[TyrannosaurusRex]

This is a new ‘art piece’ I’ve been seeing pop up in many places. There seem to be a new type of fake that gets popular every several months. 
here’s another example I’ve seen in the last couple days. 

Once again, the tooth placed below the other is pointing the wrong direction, and the jaw portion is made up of different pieces of bone. The lower piece that is circled is an entirely different coloration from the rest. It’s more convincing than the fakes I’ve seen of unassociated teeth being glued into matrix, but still very fake.