Asialepidotus shingyiensis

[Crazyhen]

Take a look at this Asialepidotes shingyiensis from Yunnan, China.  It is a very nice fish.  But do you see what's the problem?

[Diplocaulus]

I don't see anything fake about this fish. 

[piranha]

 

17 hours ago, Crazyhen said:

Take a look at this Asialepidotes shingyiensis from Yunnan, China.  It is a very nice fish.  But do you see what's the problem?

 

Besides the misspelling of the genus, the matrix and the scales look a little too similar in this photo.

I would wager that this specimen appears to be manufactured from the Asialepidotus replica factory.

[Crazyhen]

You’re very right, Piranha, that this is a replica.  It was quite well made, but as you said the matrix and the scales look too homogeneous.  I was in fact amazed at the replica, it looks quite real if you don’t look closely.

[Ludwigia]

12 minutes ago, Crazyhen said:

I was in fact amazed at the replica, it looks quite real if you don’t look closely.

Just curious: Was it up for sale and also advertised as such?

[Crazyhen]

It is offered for sale in China.  Not sure if it’s available in the online platform.  It doesn’t say it’s a replica but the price is much lower than the genuine ones

[aeon.rocks]

Did you check the back or get your hands on it? It's virtually impossible to say that this is a replica (cast) or real, just by looking at photos (even if looking closer). By saying this I'm keeping in mind there were already accusations on this forum about real looking restored fossils being fake (some "hear say" that comes to mind are eggs in this topic:).

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by aeon.rocks

[Nipponites]

In the first photo, where many plates are shown, the bottom part of the matrix is exactly the same as the fish you have.

So this must be a mass-produced fake.

[aeon.rocks]

1 hour ago, Nipponites said:

In the first photo, where many plates are shown, the bottom part of the matrix is exactly the same as the fish you have.

So this must be a mass-produced fake.

 

What is the same, I don't understand? Color? I'm not against the idea that this is a fake, but if it is (which I'm doubting based on just these pics), it looks like a really f. well done extremely good paint job then, because I see a slight difference in color between the fossil and matrix. Besides, are these then fake too?:

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by aeon.rocks

[Nipponites]

I was refereing to this:

[Fossildude19]

I agree. Matrix looks exactly the same, or nearly.

 

[aeon.rocks]

Thank you for clarifying, Nipponites, I see what you mean now. Looks similar yes, different angle, but could be that it's not the exactlly same, though. Still beats me how they painted this, if it's mass produced cast.

 

Besides, this part seems not the same:

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by aeon.rocks

[JohnJ]

24 minutes ago, aeon.rocks said:

Besides, this part seems not the same:

I think that difference is an overlapping plate next to it.  Otherwise, they look like identical reproductions.

[aeon.rocks]

As mentioned, I find it interesting how well the paint job is done, if fake. And as said in the eggs topic already, if the Chinese started to produce fakes like this, then it's impossible to tell by looking at photos only. I'm not surprised by the detail shown, but by the paint job and besides, it's a common type of fish and they often split nice like the example bellow. The shine of the details seen in photos also seems like the finishing job was done with a blaster... 

 

They sell these for a few hunderds, as common as keichos, not really worth faking with amazingly painted casts imho, there are many:

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by aeon.rocks

[Fossildude19]

 

 

@aeon.rocks

 

You keep showing different images from the OP's.  I don't think the point is that all Asialepidotus fossils are fake, rather, just the ones in the OP's pictures.

I don't see enough color differences in those to say there is any paint involved. It is different from your last photo, which does show some color differences. (Scales preserved.)

Am I missing something here?

[aeon.rocks]

10 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

I don't see enough color differences in those to say there is any paint involved. It is different from your last photo, which does show some color differences. (Scales preserved.)

Am I missing something here?

 

That's the reason I showed different specimens, which also don't show much color difference between scales and matrix. And I have no reason to belive those are fake.

 

These fish are not all preserved the same, found in different layers. Point is that sometimes there is just a slight difference between the fossil and matrix, that's obvious in my other photos too.  And that contrast depends also on the light when taking photos.

 

They are found in different layers and different abrasives are used for the finish, which will also effect the color, in example iron powder works better than dolomite to give a better contrast and sometimes they also use acid.

 

If you look again at these photos, I see enough color difference in these photos to conclude that if fake, it must have been painted very well. Especially the tail looks too good to be a paint job and you can even see some matrix between the scales in the closeup. Obvious in this photo is also the effect that light has on color contrast, but clearly there is a slight color difference on the tail. Not much, but more as shown in closeup and just what one would expect with this material:

 

 

If you look at the close up of the tail, it also seems there is matrix between the scales visible in few spots and especially in the bottom portion of the tail in this picture there's a gradient between matrix and fossil.

 

 

So to conclude, imho it's impossible to say that this is a replica based on such pictures. It might be a cast, but then again, I would be surprised how well the paint job was done with a realistic matrix color and shine and slight gradient between the matrix and fossil. Even Messel fossil replicas/casts are not painted so well.

 

 

[Ludwigia]

I was completely convinced that this is a replica once I saw what Nipponites pointed out and no amount of argument is going to change my mind now.

[Fossildude19]

I suppose it is possible to paint the mold, and then add the mixture for making the cast. 

Either way, as Roger has stated, the identical (or nearly identical) matrix formation is a decent indictment towards these being replicas.

[aeon.rocks]

Yeah, what Nipponites pointed out is the only good argument for this beeing a replica. Without that, I would be 100% sure this is real, but then again - with good casts/replicas the only way to tell is examination in hand!  The matrix and the scales can look "homogeneous" on real specimens too, as demonstrated with photos above. Anyway! 

 

Maybe Crazyhen can tell more or if he has seen it in person, checked in hand or has the photos of the whole table.

[Crazyhen]

I have finally managed to find the original source of the fish.  The fish is confirmed to be a replica.  I asked the seller about how he made it, he admitted that it is a replica of a fish fossil specimen from a museum, and made by 3D printing and hydrocal plaster.  As a replica, it's really pretty well made.

[JohnJ]

Welcome to the future....  

[Diplocaulus]

Wow, I would have never noticed that the scales were identical! You guys have good eyes

[glu]

Good quality replica 

[aeon.rocks]

Thanks for the update Crazyhen! Amazing how they did the colors, shine and textures so close to what real Asialepidotus fossils looks like. With good pictures in another topic impossible to say...

[Ezio Bonsignore]

I am completely speechless, and not for good reasons. I'm afraid we are rapidly approaching a point where this thread, unvaluable as it has proved to be in prevanting me and countless others from bad purchases, will effectively have to be closed down, with "How to recognize Fossil Fabrications" being replaced by "No way".

Edited January 27, 2022 by Ezio Bonsignore
mispelling