Thoughts on this Keichousaurus fossil

[alaister]

Hi all

 

Im looking at this Keichousaurus fossil and would love to hear your insight in regards to the authenticity of it and the quality? It is original? How much restoration or painting? What is giving it away?

 

thank you

 

 

[Darktooth]

I was going out on a limb here. I am by no means an expert. But after seeing many fakes, I believe this to be a good one. Others more experienced will quickly point out if I am wrong. I see nothing to my eyes indicating fake or heavy restoration.

[alaister]

Thanks Darktooth. I appreciate your insight. What would a fake or one with a lot of restoration look like?

[Darktooth]

Hard for me to explain. Sometimes fossils are faked by carving a rock to look like it contains a fossil. Or a rock can have a fossil painted on it. Or parts of a real fossil are added to a rock with glue and matrix to make it appear like the whole fossil is hidden within the rock. I see nothing that indicates any of the above tampering. The more that you see the fakes you will began to understand.  Actually the are many good posts in this sub-forum about how to recognize fakes. I would suggest doing some research on this. 

[JBkansas]

If this one is fake, it's a good fake (to my untrained eye).  It is clearly 3 dimensional, so paint isn't a concern. I don't see any bubbles to suggest fabrication. This must be one of those unicorn well prepped Keichosauruses. You may want to get another shot of the head, it's pretty blurry in the first shot and missing in the rest.

Edited August 27, 2022 by JBkansas

[alaister]

Thanks darktooth and JBkansas. I’ll ask for more photos. It seems like this is a good one which is great to hear

[alaister]

Here a closer photo of the head. Is there anywhere I could get this properly authenticated and issued with a reputable COA?

 

thank you

[FranzBernhard]

3 hours ago, alaister said:

reputable COA?

Does such a thing exist ?

Anyways, generally, the Keich looks good and is rather well prepped.

However, the skull is very poor, just an outline. Maybe some taphonomic "problems"? As this is in strong contrast with the quite nice finger and toe bones.

Do you have any provenance for this specimen?

Franz Bernhard

[Ludwigia]

4 hours ago, alaister said:

Is there anywhere I could get this properly authenticated and issued with a reputable COA?

 

I don't know about a COA beforehand. Sounds like wishful thinking to me. But if this happens to get into your possession, then take it to your local Natural History Museum or University paleontology department for confirmation. I have a slight suspicion that this may be a well-made replica, but I could very well be wrong. Just a feeling which I can't really prove.

[Kane]

No institutions provide COAs, and there is no international body that "vets" fossils to issue certificates. At best, you can get the expert opinion of a palaeontologist that the specimen is genuine, and that should suffice. The one exception to document issuing would be disposition papers if the fossil has been collected from an area where the removal of fossils is not permitted if they are classed as property of the government. 

[alaister]

Thanks for all your input and info in regards to coa/documentation. 
 

@FranzBernhard there is no provenance for this specimen. I wonder why there is such a big contrast in the skull and rest of the fossil

[FranzBernhard]

21 minutes ago, alaister said:

I wonder why there is such a big contrast in the skull and rest of the fossil

Possibly something has sheared over the skull. Either naturally, during extraction or by accident later on. Or something completely different happend.

Franz Bernhard

[Fossildude19]

Please keep in mind - Anyone with a computer and printer can make a COA.  They are not worth the paper they are printed on.

 

[MarcoSr]

12 hours ago, Ludwigia said:

 

I have a slight suspicion that this may be a well-made replica, but I could very well be wrong. Just a feeling which I can't really prove.

 

I have a stronger feeling that this specimen is a well-made replica.  That was my initial thinking, which I just can't shake.

 

Marco Sr.

[rocket]

bit unsure about the speciment, first I thougt its a good and nice one, now I am not really convinced. Some of the ribs look engraved, the skull is unclear. Better to see it with your own eyes than on a pic. I don´t like how shiny it is, unusual but possible... Ask for a pic of the backside, if you see a bump thats a good indicator that the central body is original. 

Edited August 27, 2022 by rocket

[carch_23]

Not sure but the skull seems to be a prep issue, as seen in other keichosaur threads from what I remember. though i dont know why they would do the acid technique on the skull if the body looks like it was prepped properly. ii would suggest to take a look at the other older threads on keichosaurs to get an idea and compare with your piece on possible similarities and what to look for in a good specimen. 

Edited August 28, 2022 by carch_23

[Crazyhen]

It is a genuine specimen, just not very well prepped especially its skull.  This plate looks like a hard plate (i.e. very hard matrix), and it's manually prepped with mechanical means, rather rough in the prep work.

[alaister]

Thanks For everyone’s input. I dunno if. I’m clearer or more confused now :p

 

a lot to consider with these specimens. It’s so interesting.