Drotops megalomanicus Real or Fake?

[Constantinos Petrinos]

Hello. I bough this item from a fossil shop in France years ago. I am wondering whether it is Drotops megalomanicus and more importantly if it is a fake. I hope you can tell from the photos. Recently members Coco and JBKansas helped me identify some fake ammonites I thought were real fossils. Thank you in advance for your reply. Constantinos.

[Kane]

This looks like a cast to me.

[Fossildude19]

A photo of the bottom of the piece would be helpful.

[Pliosaur]

Here is a great link on how to identify fake trilobites : I’ve attached below 

 

https://www.trilobiti.com/amp/a-quick-guide-to-identifying-fake-trilobites

 

Some notable ways to tell:

Look for air bubbles in the matrix, often can be a sign of a cast or resin 

Differences in matrix color 

Using UV light , resin will glow 

 

another helpful link

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/collect/faketrilobites3.htm

 

 

 

[Kane]

The matrix is a big tell for me. It does not look “worked” in a way that these trilobites generally entail. Instead, it seems “emplaced” upon a not very worked piece of matrix with a few random squiggle scribe scratches to make it appear natural. I also can’t see a discovery crack. As Tim suggests above, a photo of the underside will be informative in making a more definitive determination. Also, take a closeup of the eyes as that can be diagnostic in this regard.

[piranha]

It appears to be mostly authentic with some obvious restoration on the left eye and cheek.

The subtle color gradation and fine tubercles on the pleurae are typically lost on the fakes.

 

[Coco]

Hi,

 

I can’t help you with the trilobites, but the best experts have already responded

 

Coco

[Constantinos Petrinos]

18 hours ago, Kane said:

The matrix is a big tell for me. It does not look “worked” in a way that these trilobites generally entail. Instead, it seems “emplaced” upon a not very worked piece of matrix with a few random squiggle scribe scratches to make it appear natural. I also can’t see a discovery crack. As Tim suggests above, a photo of the underside will be informative in making a more definitive determination. Also, take a closeup of the eyes as that can be diagnostic in this regard.

Thank you very much for your comments. Here is a a photo of the bottom and of the eyes. In my complete layman's opinion how could the bottom be this way. It looks to me like a cast placed on a rock. My uneducated verdict is that it is a fake. Please tell me if you agree.

[FranzBernhard]

If real, prep isn´t very good or it was incompletely preserved.

If cast, they used a poor specimen for producing the mold.

I am missing bubbles indicative for cast, but also missing the discovery crack as an indicator for being real.

 

37 minutes ago, Constantinos Petrinos said:

It looks to me like a cast placed on a rock.

Possibly, there was not much matrix with that one and so the placed it on another rock.

 

Franz Bernhard

[piranha]

There are scores of Drotops  that do not show an obvious 'discovery fracture'.

The fine details on this image of the tubercles would not be present on a cast.

 

 

 

In this case it appears the discovery fracture has been hiding in plain sight!

 

 

[JBkansas]

28 minutes ago, piranha said:

In this case it appears the discovery fracture has been hiding in plain sight!

 

 

That fracture could also explain the damage to the left eye.  

[Constantinos Petrinos]

`thanks very much everybody for your comments. Constantinos