HamptonsDoc Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 I spent a lot of time contemplating the purchase of a partial Mosasaur I saw in Tucson, decided not to, but now that I'm home both me and my wife want to contact the seller to have it shipped. I forget the name of the seller (my wife has his card at home), but when you walk into the co-op he is the first room on the right. This Mosasaur is on the wall across from the giant Megaladon jaw for those who have been there. The seller said the bone and teeth are all original, but placed into a different matrix for presentation. What do you guys think of it? I posted this also in the Tucson thread.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowpoker Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 It looks legitimate, has the small holes on the bottom used for detection of electrical signals. May be slightly restored, but it looks genuine enough! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Yep looks real. And also definitely the outer matrix has been altered for presentation. One thing to note though. Both jaw pieces are of the upper jaw. The orientation of the teeth looks a little too clean with the interlocking teeth. It might just be a result of taphonomy. But it wouldn't surprise me if some of the bones were moved slightly to create a "nicer" composition. It seems both maxillae are present, I can also see parts of the pterygoids and what looks like the frontal bone. It seems there's a significant part of the skull here. Edited February 7, 2016 by LordTrilobite 1 Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Neat looking block. I agree with Lord Trilobites assessment it looks too clean. Everything is on top of the matrix which is not typical. My money says the bones were placed in that position to give it a good look and it does look good. All real and a great display item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 What I think was done, is that this piece was almost completely prepped by removing almost all matrix, only leaving a block or 2 with a jumble of bones. This was then probably set into a new more aesthetically pleasing block of matrix that was constructed for it. Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolman1c Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 I own real matrix from Morocco and i can confirm this matrix is not the original but the jaw looks fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 After reading what lordtrilobite posted, I then took another look and can see exactly what he is saying. Nice piece though. I bought a 'paddle' that has been placed in matrix. I will have to post that someday. RB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sseth Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 It looks nice but a few of the teeth are not original. They are in the wrong position and one is the wrong species. You can see that they have been attached to the roots that were present. It has also been set in this matrix. It is great display piece however. _____________________________________ Seth www.fossilshack.com www.americanfossil.com www.fishdig.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamptonsDoc Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 Thank you everyone for all the feedback. I'm still on the fence if I should purchase it or not. It is a great display peice but knowing that it's not all original and maybe even now teeth from different species sits strange with me. Perhaps I'll wait for next year, save my money and purchase a larger one... I'll let you guys know what I decide. Any idea of what species this is mostly from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Looks like Prognathodon sp. imo. Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sseth Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Looks like Prognathodon sp. imo. Agreed. Mostly Prognathodon. 1 _____________________________________ Seth www.fossilshack.com www.americanfossil.com www.fishdig.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Out of curiousity, which tooth do you think is from a different species? Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 If it's a decision breaker I can go have a look at the teeth for you and take closeup pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sseth Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Out of curiousity, which tooth do you think is from a different species? The very first tooth appears to be a premax of a currii, which does not fit with the rest, and is in the wrong position. _____________________________________ Seth www.fossilshack.com www.americanfossil.com www.fishdig.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Again, I'll play the skeptic. I often find myself with a contrary opinion of much of the mosasaur material being sold out of Morocco. On the other hand, there is an abundance of fantastic material found in that region. To me, this is a composited specimen, arranged in 'new' matrix for visual appeal. I agree that most of the material looks to be Prognathodon; but not necessarily from the same specimen. It appears to me that the two maxillae have been placed in opposing positions. There are also parts of a pterygoid, jugal, and other bits included. Bones found in confusing positions is not an unusual occurrence. However, if you start at the matched posterior ends of the maxillae (toward the right side of the bones) and observe the foramina (holes) patterns, they are not close to matching up. Over on the left side, the added bone bits don't appear to belong to the premaxilla. Additionally, I think most of the teeth have been restored or added. Just my opinion from looking at one photo. People should keep in mind that fossil bone can be broken (shaped) to look like it belongs when it may come from another mosasaur. Handling and/or studying genuine specimens from museums, published articles, and other vetted sources helps me the most. For comparison, 'jnoun11' has posted many good specimens from Morocco. Other Prognathodons can be found all over the web: LINK Link link 2 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordTrilobite Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The very first tooth appears to be a premax of a currii, which does not fit with the rest, and is in the wrong position. !! I have a tooh that looks just like it. P. currii has been on my bucket list for a while now. But I wasn't aware I might already have one. Again, I'll play the skeptic. I often find myself with a contrary opinion of much of the mosasaur material being sold out of Morocco. On the other hand, there is an abundance of fantastic material found in that region. To me, this is a composited specimen, arranged in 'new' matrix for visual appeal. I agree that most of the material looks to be Prognathodon; but not necessarily from the same specimen. It appears to me that the two maxillae have been placed in opposing positions. There are also parts of a pterygoid, jugal, and other bits included. Bones found in confusing positions is not an unusual occurrence. However, if you start at the matched posterior ends of the maxillae (toward the right side of the bones) and observe the foramina (holes) patterns, they are not close to matching up. Over on the left side, the added bone bits don't appear to belong to the premaxilla. Additionally, I think most of the teeth have been restored or added. Just my opinion from looking at one photo. People should keep in mind that fossil bone can be broken (shaped) to look like it belongs when it may come from another mosasaur. Handling and/or studying genuine specimens from museums, published articles, and other vetted sources helps me the most. For comparison, 'jnoun11' has posted many good specimens from Morocco. Other Prognathodons can be found all over the web: LINK Link link I completely agree with the maxillae being placed in opposing positions. Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitch1979 Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 To what was told here already .. and some quantities of such a fossils I had my hands on: I fear this to be a composite. As a matter of fact, I would bet all my money on it, it is. These bones have been placed on another matrix then the original, most likely to have some discards or left overs being 'put to good use' some things to think about: 1/ I haven't ever seen original matrix from Khouribga being covered with any other sands or dust for aesthetic purposes, although I have done it myself on several large pieces with a very nice result. 2/ There is a shark tooth, shark vert on the very right which do occur in the same original matrix, but their place is just too nice here 3/ There is a finger bone (flipper bone) from a mosa sp at the very right. Because they had so many, it is very rare to just find one bone like this in a plate 4/ I agree with the currii tooth 5/ a feeling in my belly tells me the crumbly right side should have been found at the lef the left in any original fossil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamptonsDoc Posted February 14, 2016 Author Share Posted February 14, 2016 Thank you so much for all the feedback on this piece. I really learned a lot from you guys. While it is a great display item that would look nice in my living room (and my wife approved!), I decided to pass and to wait for something more authentic in the original matrix with pieces from the same animal. The price seemed right to me (I had him down to $2k), but I'm sure I'll find my Mosasaur next year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Deals UK Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Marine reptiles are my specialist subject, I've been studying and dealing in them for years and this is most definitely genuine. Prognathodon giganteus would be the ID. As for the matrix, while I agree it defintely looks to have been set or at least sculpted and sealed, a simple few scratches with your nail will reveal if it's composite matrix or it's original (will be heavily compressed and come away with a lot more difficulty than the incredibly loose composite matrix that will literally pour off like sugar off a spoon) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 I still stand by my comment regarding the single photo. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now