Fake Amber

[magolodon56]

Hi, this is a piece I bought in Bulgaria,oh no! I hear you all cry, but so far it has withstood all the tests for authenticity that I have tried. It floats in saline solution & it gives off a lovely resinous smell when pierced with a hot pin. It looks too good to be true I know & is posing beautifully . It appears to have been removed from a brooch mounting at some point. Is there any other test I can try? thanks guys

[Auspex]

It could well be real amber resin, but the inclusion could be staged (sometimes quite artfully). The only non-destructive test I know is to confirm whether the inclusion is an extinct species.

[CH4ShotCaller]

I hope it's genuine! I only have one piece of amber from the Dominican Republic, about the size of 2 peanuts. My brother sent it as a gift many years ago with several small insect inclusions. Amber is one of me favorites, thanks for sharing!

[snolly50]

A drop of acetone will have no effect on amber. Younger resin will become sticky. Given the fact it is passing the amber "tests" so far and assuming it is impervious to the acetone; then there will be no doubt it is amber. Auspex wisely warns against bogus "reconstituted" amber, that is, small pieces of amber melted together with modern day critters entombed. Even solid ancient amber can be hollowed and an inserted critter covered with the melted stuff. An extinct animal is obviously a nod toward the "real thing." Also the complexity of the inclusion might be considered. Are bubbles present? Gases released from the trapped creature create these - not present with a planted dead bug. Detritus and other imperfections may also tend to support "real" as opposed to an artfully arranged fake.

[Raistlin]

Many times real amber will luminess under a black light (accept the red stuff it only slightly does I think).

Real amber will gain a static charge when rubbed on cotton.

Real amber will have little or no taste.

As the others have said you could have real amber that has been filled or split, but you might see this under a microscope or with black light.

I was just reading about several tests the other day. I am on phone at work or I would get you the link.

[magolodon56]

thanks guys for all the advice, will have to have a closer look ,knowing my luck it's dodgy

[painshill]

Hi Magolodon

There are two questions to be answered here (and it’s the second question which is really what you need to answer):

1. Is it Amber?

2. Is it a genuinely ancient fossilised organism?

From the tests you have done so far, we can conclude it’s not a plastic substitute. But as others are saying, there are fraudulent ways of embedding genuine (but modern) organisms in amber and even easier ways of embedding them in younger materials such as copals. There are also modern copals containing recent organisms – some of which may only be tens of years old. Your piece may not be amber – and in fact it doesn’t have to be amber (true amber) for the fossil to be authentic… it all depends on the age.

We don’t know if that is suggested to be Baltic material but – if it is - most Baltic amber is Eocene, and in the region of 44 million years old. The characteristic resinous odour derives largely from terpenes and at this kind of age they have been largely broken down such that the amber should actually have very little smell when using the (red) hot needle test. More usually the test would generate sooty smoke with only a faint sweet odour. Since you are getting a strong resinous smell, I would guess it has to be much younger material (or it isn’t Baltic) and is most probably copal. If it were a synthetic plastic, the odour would normally be unmistakeable and unpleasant.

Generally, it’s the disappearance of the terpenes that distinguishes true amber from copal and that corresponds broadly with age, although it’s not a clear dividing line. You didn’t specifically say whether or not you had performed the acetone test but if not, it will help. Apply a single drop to an inconspicuous area (you can use nail polish remover) and let it evaporate. Then apply a second drop and see it it’s tacky to the touch or if a piece of paper tissue sticks to it. If so, then it’s copal (or a modern tree gum), not amber.

Also you could try it under UV light. Amber fluoresces as either pale blue or more usually shows as a butterscotch yellow colour. Copal most usually shows as white.

If it is copal, then it could still be old and the organism could still be an authentic fossil but the odds are then decreasing since modern copal is so frequently passed off as ancient and it’s such an easy material to use for fakery. Copal is really difficult (for an amateur) to authenticate with respect to its antiquity unless the included organism can be identified as extinct or having undergone significant morphological change over successive generations. I can’t make out exactly what the organism is, other than it seems to have 4 legs??? Have a real good look to see if it has any natural colouration left. That would be a bad sign. Genuine fossil organisms are almost invariably black or dark brown. Baltic inclusions sometimes have a white surface coating.

If your tests still say it’s amber not copal then let us know. There are further tests that a reasonably equipped amateur can do to establish authenticity.

Edited October 18, 2012 by painshill

[magolodon56]

it's a very small frog,under better magnification it does have a whitish coating. The fact that it looks staged makes me doubt it's authenticity. There are other inclusions but I can't make out what they are. Will need a betted microscope. Thanks.

[snolly50]

I foolishly assumed the inclusion was an insect. Since it is animal not routinely seen in amber, it bears even closer scrutiny. If the excellent advice already given establishes that the piece is amber, then the logical place to look is legitimacy of the inclusion. I would think the easiest path would be to consult a biologist with knowledge of modern day amphibians. Is the frog an extant species or not? I think it would be worth the effort, if it is an "ancient" frog, it's remarkable and rare.

[painshill]

I kinda feared it might be a frog. If genuine, it would be only the 6th (authenticated) example of which I am aware and might command a price in the region of $25,000 if the preservation is good. If it's a fake you might expect to pay about $40 in a jewellery shop in Prague or rather less in a Hong Kong streetmarket if you haggle hard.

The smart money is on the latter, I'm afraid.

[snolly50]

I fear painshill's assessment of the odds is very accurate. In all probability it is just an interesting curiosity piece. However, there is a possibility, albeit small, that it is a remarkable piece worthy of scientific evaluation and as pointed out of no small monetary valuation. Please let the Forum know of any future developments.

[magolodon56]

I think I'll just glue a magnet on it & stick it on the freezer door, it only cost me the equivalent of £5 Thanks for the input, will serve me well in future.

[NZ_Fossil_Collecta]

A drop of acetone will have no effect on amber. Younger resin will become sticky. Given the fact it is passing the amber "tests" so far and assuming it is impervious to the acetone; then there will be no doubt it is amber. Auspex wisely warns against bogus "reconstituted" amber, that is, small pieces of amber melted together with modern day critters entombed. Even solid ancient amber can be hollowed and an inserted critter covered with the melted stuff. An extinct animal is obviously a nod toward the "real thing." Also the complexity of the inclusion might be considered. Are bubbles present? Gases released from the trapped creature create these - not present with a planted dead bug. Detritus and other imperfections may also tend to support "real" as opposed to an artfully arranged fake.

Apparently Malaysian dummar gum is immune to acetone

[painshill]

Apparently Malaysian dummar gum is immune to acetone

That's not correct, I would say… or at least a misleading statement.

Dummar gum (more usually spelled dammar) is impervious to acetone after it has fossilised. As for other ambers, it’s the age coupled with pressure and heat that makes it so. Malaysian fossil dammar gum is most usually Miocene or Eocene.

As a modern gum, hardened copal or subfossil it most certainly does dissolve in organic solvents (ethanol, turpentine and acteone). Dammar gum is widely used as a varnish dissolved in such solutions.

It comes mainly from Dipterocarpaceae (and a few species of Burseraceae) trees which gives it a different composition than other resins which typically form ambers when fossilised. It’s rich in low molecular weight components and lower in aromatic volatiles such that it hardens to copal and subfossil status rather more readily than most other resins (particularly versus pine resins). As such it may reach a point of being unaffected by acetone sooner than is the case for other subfossil copals, but we’re still talking about very considerable antiquity to reach that point.

In unfossilised form it’s relatively soft, clear and colourless to yellowish, moving to harder and greyish-brown as it passes though subfossil to fossil status.

Edited April 1, 2014 by painshill

[NZ_Fossil_Collecta]

thanks for clearing that up.