Keichou - a technical question

[Ezio Bonsignore]

This question should probably go on the general discussion, but I post it here on the chance that the answer might point at some form of fakety.

 

I am intrigued by this K. being offered fo sale. How was it prepared? To my untrained eye, there seem to be no signs of tools. Judging by the areas surrounding the fossile, it would appear that some kind of acid (?) has been used, thar corroded the stone matrix away while leaving the bones intact (?!?) Is something like that possibile?

[daves64]

I'm seeing what appear to be tool marks in several areas and quite a bit of paint as well. Most of the prepped areas have been smoothed, but some still show marks.

[Coco]

Are pelvic bones usually like this ?

 

Coco

[snolly50]

38 minutes ago, Coco said:

Are pelvic bones usually like this

It appears a less commonly seen dorsal presentation. Perhaps that is what appears "different" in the pelvic area.

 

Regarding paint, a 10X loupe should settle the presence/extent of any brush work. 

Edited December 6, 2022 by snolly50
Added a thought

[Ezio Bonsignore]

"Regarding paint, a 10X loupe should settle the presence/extent of any brush work. "

 

Photos can be much magnified by clicking onto them." I cannot see any sign of paint, but this may very well be due to lack of knowledge - which is why I am asking.

 

[FranzBernhard]

I am worrying about the spinal column. Is it ground to death or is this the natural outline of the vertebra? Bones and matrix have the same shape...

Franz Bernhard

[hndmarshall]

I have one of these the one you posted photos of above is painted to enhance the bones. From what I can see under enlarged photo of yours it appears that it was worked on...look at the pic #1- shows a bone painted in as their is no bone visible.

#2- shows areas of bone that the paint did not get into , you can see this mainly on joints or cracks in the bone.

#3- shows bone that has no or partial paint enhancement. Also the spine of this specimen shows little prep work possibly to preserve it and  not destroy the delicate bone structures encased.

I have seen a lot of fakes and some called fakes that were real but overly enhanced with paint and little prep work

 

*pic used is an enlargement of the pic in question in this thread....I say real but enhanced for display

[snolly50]

I have a different interpretation of the "light" areas outlined above as #2. I think these are areas where matrix remains in cracks and textured areas. This view more logically supports "no paint" as opposed to painted pieces. Below, I have enlarged the area #1, cited above as a painted-in feature. I see 3-D bone there with surface features - belying a smooth coat of paint.

 

 

Of course, my eyesight (and indeed perceptions) are no better than others and probably worse than those of many. I believe the only way to have peace of knowledge with this fossil (or any of the multitude that elicit this same discussion); is to examine the specimen, in hand, under magnification. Even a 10X loupe will show paint. If not just blatantly obvious, the errant brush marks will tell. No one has the skill or patience to paint all those delicate bones without leaving a blob or missed stroke somewhere. Good luck, have fun.

 

Edit:

Ha! My "enlargement" looks no bigger in post than the original did. It was larger on my computer, not just my imagination. Anyway, if you squint, you can perhaps discern the surface feature of the bone I think I see.

Edited December 7, 2022 by snolly50
added information

[hndmarshall]

This is mine no prep work no acid no wire brush no dermal... and I like them that way. But there are a lot of the bones exposed.

the last pic is something in the body coprolite perhaps? it looks like there are very tiny bones are the one end of it. Its not an egg as there have been documentation of fossils proving they gave birth to live offspring. no flatness due to paint you can see texture.

[hndmarshall]

sorry for photo quality my good camera is on the fritz

[Ezio Bonsignore]

Thank you all very much for your excellent comments and discussion, I really to appreciate the way you share your knowledge.

Hndmarshall: AFAIK it is still being debated as to whether Keichous were viviparous or ovoviviparous. If that "blot" could be positively identified as an egg, this would turn out to be an extremely important fossil...

Edited December 8, 2022 by Ezio Bonsignore
Added comment