Jump to content

First time fish fossil buyer: which one do you think is better? Thank you!


MHAN

Recommended Posts

I am thinking of buying a fish fossil for my collection. 

 

These two look similar to me and they are all 13 cm.

 

Just want to get your opinion, which one do you think is better?

 

Thanks!!

 

First one:

c50f7d046099a5315242fa1fb1b3078.thumb.jpg.5408dc23e57718e4586f520ae28fa3f6.jpg

 

 

Second one:

9c7c9fff7fc62242d1b81c701b24aab.thumb.jpg.391d9075d849721413b5c82b46230d7e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you say, they're pretty similar, at least to my untrained fish eye. 

But I'd go for the first one due to what i think looks like more detail in the head and gill areas. 

Just my amateur opinion. :)

They both look nice to me. 

  • Enjoyed 1
  • I Agree 2

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmm....  :zzzzscratchchin:If I were the buyer, I would keep the first, a mi me gusta mas.

 

I don't understand, it's just my appreciation, but it seems better preserved, and it has a better 3D in all the details.

 

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

The first one has better preservation.

The second one is not bad, though.

  • I Agree 1

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  VFOTM  --- APRIL - 2015  

__________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."

John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everyone else: the first one has less disarticulation of the skull bones than the second.  That being said, the second is a fine specimen too if cost is a factor.  The fact that the first one is glued is not a serious issue, it's very common to find when splitting the rock that a fish will run off the edge, and only if you are lucky will you find the rest of it by splitting adjacent rocks and then you can put it back together. 

 

Don

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I immediately thought the first one looks better.

  • Thank You 1
  • I Agree 1

Dipleurawhisperer5.jpg

I like Trilo-butts and I cannot lie.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

I agree with everyone else: the first one has less disarticulation of the skull bones than the second.  That being said, the second is a fine specimen too if cost is a factor.  The fact that the first one is glued is not a serious issue, it's very common to find when splitting the rock that a fish will run off the edge, and only if you are lucky will you find the rest of it by splitting adjacent rocks and then you can put it back together. 

 

Don

Thanks, Don. Yes you are right. The first one is more expensive though. I was concerned about the glue. But if it is not a big issue, I will take that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tidgy&#x27;s Dad said:

As you say, they're pretty similar, at least to my untrained fish eye. 

But I'd go for the first one due to what i think looks like more detail in the head and gill areas. 

Just my amateur opinion. :)

They both look nice to me. 

You are the expert!

  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...