Tyrannosaurus rex tooth

[Auspex]

$40,000 restored teeth are the purview of those who buy iconic objects to reinforce their own status

[bcfossilcollector]

$40,000 restored teeth are the purview of those who buy iconic objects to reinforce their own status

So very true.

[-Andy-]

Personally, I don't have anything against restoring in theory. But there's a difference between stabilising a fragile fossil and basically making an "art" piece out of it. I think this tooth is a bit over done.

I think somewhere in the middle might be the best of both worlds, depending on the fossil of course. some things are better left alone. While other fossils could greatly benefit from some restoring and even some "beautification". One just needs to know when to stop.

In this particular example, personally I can't really tell much difference between the filled in parts and the original parts since the whole surface seems to have been altered. I think maybe filling in some of the holes but leaving much of the enamel as is would be best with this tooth. So I think they "restored" too much, regardless of price.

I agree that the restoration was too heavily done to this piece.

Still, I would gladly go for it if it was a tiny, tiny fraction of its current price.

It would be interesting to see if the preference for "as is" as opposed to 'largely doctored' corresponds to those who collect as opposed to those who purchase.

I'm a collector, so yeah I'd take the restored version. Note that I do not dislike the original unaltered version; heck I'd gladly take it too if it was much cheaper. My concern is on how fragile it looks.

For the moment, I'm assuming that the Chinese would take the restored version too. Showed the post to several Chinese collectors, all showed no aversion to its restoration. Showed it to an American friend, instantly pointed out it was too restored.

[Dracorex_hogwartsia]

I agree that the restoration was too heavily done to this piece.

Still, I would gladly go for it if it was a tiny, tiny fraction of its current price.

I'm a collector, so yeah I'd take the restored version. Note that I do not dislike the original unaltered version; heck I'd gladly take it too if it was much cheaper. My concern is on how fragile it looks.

For the moment, I'm assuming that the Chinese would take the restored version too. Showed the post to several Chinese collectors, all showed no aversion to its restoration. Showed it to an American friend, instantly pointed out it was too restored.

To me, this tooth is a complete worthless piece of junk! It is so altered from it's previous state that I don't even classify it as a true fossil anymore. Like someone earlier said, it's a piece of art deco now! It's been so heavily restored that it's unrecognizable from it's previous state. But having said that, I do understand why this was done. The original condition of this tooth was horrible.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Dracorex_hogwartsia

[jpc]

I'm a collector, so yeah I'd take the restored version. Note that I do not dislike the original unaltered version; heck I'd gladly take it too if it was much cheaper. My concern is on how fragile it looks.

For the moment, I'm assuming that the Chinese would take the restored version too. Showed the post to several Chinese collectors, all showed no aversion to its restoration. Showed it to an American friend, instantly pointed out it was too restored.

I guess I should clarify what I meant... "Those who collect" should read " those collect their own fossils in the field". I collect my own fossils, and I do very little reconstruction when I prep them. My thought is that Nature gives you what you get... Fixing it up does not make it bettter. Makes it prettier, maybe, but not better. If I find a rex tooth that is missing parts.. So be it... That is what there was when I found it. ANd I really don't want to try to fool anyone by making it perfect. Yes, i will glue pieces back together, but do a wee bit of reconstruction if it is needed to hold a bone together, but that is all. Edited December 19, 2015 by jpc

[LordTrilobite]

As someone who mostly just buys fossils. I don't mind incomplete fossils. As long as they are interesting. On the other hand, sometimes it can be nice to enhance the presentation as long as the fossil doesn't lose anything. Like if you prep more martix than needed around a trilobite to create a plate like display. It's far from natural, but it doesn't subtract from the trilobite itself and it creates a "cleaner" display.

I think what it may come down to is what the motivation is for someone to have a collection of fossils. Personally, I'm fascinated by science, biology, palaeontology, biomechanics, anatomy etc. So if I can buy a broken fossil that I can still learn something from I'm happy. But if one collects just for aesthetics, the educational properties might be of less importance compared to the presentation.

[Auspex]

As someone who mostly just buys fossils. I don't mind incomplete fossils. As long as they are interesting. On the other hand, sometimes it can be nice to enhance the presentation as long as the fossil doesn't lose anything. Like if you prep more martix than needed around a trilobite to create a plate like display. It's far from natural, but it doesn't subtract from the trilobite itself and it creates a "cleaner" display.

I think what it may come down to is what the motivation is for someone to have a collection of fossils. Personally, I'm fascinated by science, biology, palaeontology, biomechanics, anatomy etc. So if I can buy a broken fossil that I can still learn something from I'm happy. But if one collects just for aesthetics, the educational properties might be of less importance compared to the presentation.

Very well said!

My outrage stems from the blatant and unseemly monetization in this and similar cases. Yes, fossils are valued, and thus are bought and sold (my own collection is exhibit one), but there is a fuzzy line that gets crossed when a specimen's veritable essence is eradicated to make it more salable.

[Ridgehiker]

To me, this tooth is a complete worthless piece of junk! It is so altered from it's previous state that I don't even classify it as a true fossil anymore. Like someone earlier said, it's a piece of art deco now! It's been so heavily restored that it's unrecognizable from it's previous state. But having said that, I do understand why this was done. The original condition of this tooth was horrible.

Agreed with exception of the word 'horrible'. It is what it is.

In the Scollard formation I can find 1 or 2 T Rex teeth an outing...once found 6 of them. They are situated in a way that I have to concentrate my eye on finding them and nothing else. They are usually in pieces ( sometimes intact) with fragments stuck in rills between the eroding bentonite clay. In recent years I don't even collect them (or other Dino fossils) but just leave them be in situ.

I have started to get more satisfaction from enjoying the moment rather than the need to possess....similar to hunting with a camera rather than a rifle.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Ridgehiker

[Dracorex_hogwartsia]

Agreed with exception of the word 'horrible'. It is what it is.

In the Scollard formation I can find 1 or 2 T Rex teeth an outing...once found 6 of them. They are situated in a way that I have to concentrate my eye on finding them and nothing else. They are usually in pieces ( sometimes intact) with fragments stuck in rills between the eroding bentonite clay. In recent years I don't even collect them (or other Dino fossils) but just leave them be in situ.

I have started to get more satisfaction from enjoying the moment rather than the need to possess....similar to hunting with a camera rather than a rifle.

I do think the tooth was in pretty bad shape. If I were to have found it in the field myself, I would have been thrilled but in that condition, it's not a tooth I would buy. I do find it kind of sad though when people heavily restore fossils like this. Other than minor repair and restoration, I think a fossil should be left in it's natural state. Who wants a fossil that looks great but is almost all fake. I don't!

[sandgroper]

I am new to this hobby and as I live in Western Australia I am limited in what I can find myself so am in the position that if I want something like a TRex tooth I will have to buy one as I cant find one. I don't have a lazy $40 000 to spend on a tooth but if I did I would not buy this one, I can understand the logic behind restoring something so as it wont deteriorate further but this tooth to me is just glue and bits of bone, I preferred this one before it was restored when it had some integrity, not that I'll probably ever own one but who knows!

[Carcharodontosaurus]

This tooth is not a fossil. This tooth is not art. This tooth is a fossil-based desecrated piece of junk. I would refuse to have it even for free as having it among my other dinosaur teeth would devalue the collection as a whole. Simply sad.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Carcharodontosaurus

[ElToro]

Yea, I saw on sale a couple days ago. Sort of thing that rich clueless folk like to buy after watching Jurassic Park. A mate of mine who is a member here has only just started his collection and is looking for a TRex tooth. He's seen some good ones for $1K, not 40!

I'm still amazed at the "so called" Anomalocaris for quite a few thousand. That seemed to be some sort of Jackson Pollock painting...Might have been an Anomalocaris a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....

[fossilized6s]

I think they over restored this. But this wasn't in "horrible" condition originally, in my opinion. I see the problem with the price and morality of the sale, but I'm not here to teach morals to grown adults. I don't think this is a "worthless piece of junk". From the pictures provided, it looks like it only needed 10% restoration max. But they went overboard with the paint. And I'm not going to assume what the other side looked like. Yeah sure, the price is grossly inflated. But for the right price I would be happy to have a large Trex tooth in my collection that was 90% original.

In this case, I would have left the restoration unpainted.

Edited December 22, 2015 by fossilized6s

[fossilized6s]

Is this a worthless piece of junk?

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/55724-alethopteris-serlii-restoration/?hl=alethopteris

Sure, I'm not selling it. But price aside, the resto job it's self on the Trex is top notch.

Almost every single dinosaur ever found has been restored to further our knowledge of their anatomy. Is that stupid and "wrong"?

I just feel like the art of restoration is getting bashed on a bit too much. Please, if you don't like restoration of fossils or respect it, by all means erase 99% of what you know or have been taught about the extinct creatures that we all adore.

Edited December 22, 2015 by fossilized6s

[LordTrilobite]

I think they over restored this. But this wasn't in "horrible" condition originally, in my opinion. I see the problem with the price and morality of the sale, but I'm not here to teach morals to grown adults. I don't think this is a "worthless piece of junk". From the pictures provided, it looks like it only needed 10% restoration max. But they went overboard with the paint. And I'm not going to assume what the other side looked like. Yeah sure, the price is grossly inflated. But for the right price I would be happy to have a large Trex tooth in my collection that was 90% original.

In this case, I would have left the restoration unpainted.

IMG_20151222_095547.jpg

I agree, filling in the gaps but leaving it unpainted would have been a nice solution.

Is this a worthless piece of junk?

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/55724-alethopteris-serlii-restoration/?hl=alethopteris

Sure, I'm not selling it. But price aside, the resto job it's self on the Trex is top notch.

Almost every single dinosaur ever found has been restored to further our knowledge of their anatomy. Is that stupid and "wrong"?

I just feel like the art of restoration is getting bashed on a bit too much. Please, if you don't like restoration of fossils or respect it, by all means erase 99% of what you know or have been taught about the extinct creatures that we all adore.

That looks pretty nice. Some may disagree with the reconstructed parts not being visible. But I think the main difference with your Alethopteris and the T. rex tooth here, is that you have left the original surface in it's original state aside from cleaning it. And cleaning it doesn't seem to have "removed" any information. So all in all I think that is a nice piece.

It's mainly that the rex tooth is just painted too much so that the original material is no longer visible or recognisable.

Edited December 22, 2015 by LordTrilobite

[piranha]

...From the pictures provided, it looks like it only needed 10% restoration max. But they went overboard with the paint. And I'm not going to assume what the other side looked like...

I disagree with this conclusion. There is at least 10% restoration and paint on the only side they provided a 'before' photo. We can only assume something similar or worse for the other side based on the 'after' photos. The fact that the seller is showing one side but not the other is an attempt to hide the actual percentage. Quite frankly, for $40K, no one should have to make assumptions about an undisclosed 'before' photo.

...Almost every single dinosaur ever found has been restored to further our knowledge of their anatomy. Is that stupid and "wrong"?...

Apples and oranges. Good dinosaur restoration practices always include a detailed restoration map, and many museum specimens leave the restored parts unpainted for scientific accuracy.

[fossilized6s]

I disagree with this conclusion. There is at least 10% restoration and paint on the only side they provided a 'before' photo. We can only assume something similar or worse for the other side based on the 'after' photos. The fact that the seller is showing one side but not the other is an attempt to hide the actual percentage. Quite frankly, for $40K, no one should have to make assumptions about an undisclosed 'before' photo.

I agree for this specific piece that a lot more pictures and information should be provided. That's just professionalism. And yes, they're probably hiding major restoration on the other side. I just don't like to assume things. I would simply ask the seller for more pictures.

It just seems like restoration of any and all fossils are getting a disservice.

Original condition of tooth=poor>fair

Repair=fair

Restored with just epoxy=fair

Paint=poor

Price=ridiculous

Information and pictures=very poor

[Dracorex_hogwartsia]

Is this a worthless piece of junk?

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/55724-alethopteris-serlii-restoration/?hl=alethopteris

Sure, I'm not selling it. But price aside, the resto job it's self on the Trex is top notch.

Almost every single dinosaur ever found has been restored to further our knowledge of their anatomy. Is that stupid and "wrong"?

I just feel like the art of restoration is getting bashed on a bit too much. Please, if you don't like restoration of fossils or respect it, by all means erase 99% of what you know or have been taught about the extinct creatures that we all adore.

HaHa! I feel like I'm being baited here! I want you to take a look at Troodon's fossils. How much repair and especially restoration do you see? Not much do you. That is the quality of fossil that I strive for. Repair and restoration should be minimal. As a collector now for 20 years I have pretty high standards and the rex tooth as found in the field does not meet them and the heavily restored version most definitely does not! What you do is fine and for people that like highly restored fossils that's also fine. I actually thought the restored tooth looked great! They're just not for me.

I don't really understand though how my not liking or respecting the restoration of fossils has anything to do with my knowledge of them. Believe me, I know how things work. I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination but I'm coming at this from a collectors perspective and the bottom line is I do not like heavily restored fossils. I'll stand by what I've previously said, the rex tooth found in the field was in horrible condition and the heavily restored version is a worthless piece of junk! Again, compare this rex tooth to Troodon's.

[JohnJ]

Based on their level of knowledge, it's the owner's prerogative as to what is done to any fossil.

Opinions of prep and restoration will run the gamut of knowledge, too; sometimes I like, and sometimes I don't.

[Auspex]

There is not one personal opinion voiced here that I take exception to; none are wrong, nor 'superior' to any other.

Collections are personal, extensions of the collector in the full sense. If there were only one perfect criteria for collecting, this would be a very small, boring forum

[-Andy-]

HaHa! I feel like I'm being baited here! I want you to take a look at Troodon's fossils. How much repair and especially restoration do you see? Not much do you. That is the quality of fossil that I strive for. Repair and restoration should be minimal. As a collector now for 20 years I have pretty high standards and the rex tooth as found in the field does not meet them and the heavily restored version most definitely does not! What you do is fine and for people that like highly restored fossils that's also fine. I actually thought the restored tooth looked great! They're just not for me.

I don't really understand though how my not liking or respecting the restoration of fossils has anything to do with my knowledge of them. Believe me, I know how things work. I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination but I'm coming at this from a collectors perspective and the bottom line is I do not like heavily restored fossils. I'll stand by what I've previously said, the rex tooth found in the field was in horrible condition and the heavily restored version is a worthless piece of junk! Again, compare this rex tooth to Troodon's.

No one here is disputing that a high-quality unrestored tooth should be the goal for any collector. Sadly, not everyone is as skilled or as lucky as Troodon.

To a paleontologist, restoring the tooth to that extent would make lesser its scientific value, I know. The condition of the tooth, the matrix on it, the size, weight, length etc should be unaltered for the sake of research. But calling a heavily restored version of the tooth "a worthless piece of junk" is a very strong statement, one I disagree with.

Put it this way. I'm going to a school for show-and-tell. My goal is to leave an impression. I can use a T-Rex tooth in its original condition with chunks missing. Or I can whip out this 7-inch tooth and have everyone's jaws hanging. If it fulfills my purpose, if it impressed people, then in no way is it worthless.

[Dracorex_hogwartsia]

No one here is disputing that a high-quality unrestored tooth should be the goal for any collector. Sadly, not everyone is as skilled or as lucky as Troodon.

To a paleontologist, restoring the tooth to that extent would make lesser its scientific value, I know. The condition of the tooth, the matrix on it, the size, weight, length etc should be unaltered for the sake of research. But calling a heavily restored version of the tooth "a worthless piece of junk" is a very strong statement, one I disagree with.

Put it this way. I'm going to a school for show-and-tell. My goal is to leave an impression. I can use a T-Rex tooth in its original condition with chunks missing. Or I can whip out this 7-inch tooth and have everyone's jaws hanging. If it fulfills my purpose, if it impressed people, then in no way is it worthless.

This will be the last time I comment on this topic even though I started it :-) The restoration job was beautiful, I don't dispute that! The restorer is very highly skilled. They took a ugly rex tooth in poor condition and turned it into a beautiful work of art that is completely unrecognizable from it's original state. For those collectors that are impressed with this kind of stuff, go ahead and pay your $40,000! Buy all the heavily restored, fabricated, fake fossils you want. I'll stick with the real thing thank you.

[jpc]

Has anyone bypassed the quality of the fossil lately and just said 40 Thousand for a tooth... These people belong in the same level of Hell as Shkreli.

[-Andy-]

Has anyone bypassed the quality of the fossil lately and just said 40 Thousand for a tooth... These people belong in the same level of Hell as Shkreli.

Greedy I agree. But man, it's really two different things. One's for science, the other's denying treatment to needy patients with a 5,500% price increase.

I get that there's an aversion to putting a price tag on fossils. But I see the reality behind it too. If someone is willing to pay for it, then why wouldn't the seller want to make that money? This is not a feathered fossil or a new discovery, it's simply a trophy.

This forum has been through this argument too many times: how monetizing fossils hurts science and pave the way for landowners to charge a premium on fossil-diggers. Then the counter point on how selling fossils help feed families, and motivate people to go into the field to dig, and how many important discoveries were made by diggers looking to make a quick buck. On and on it goes, with no good conclusion.

Perhaps our differences in opinion is due to our background; I'm used to seeing fossils with a price tag(often hefty) on them.

Singapore just purchased three diplodocus for our museum for 8.6 million USD after discounts. Yes, after discounts. That's how expensive they were. And really, if we didn't pay that, we would never have won out over other museums. I don't think the seller and buyer are wrong in this. In the end, it boils down to: Willing buyer, willing seller.

Edited December 23, 2015 by -Andy-

[jpc]

Yeah I might have been exaggerating a bit, how about a couple levels above Shkreli. Yes, there is a market and all what you said... but 40K is RIDICULOUS. Maybe I should just change camps completely and go find a few good teeth and retire.