Dinosaur Footprint, Real or Fake?

[FosselDumbDumb]

I picket this up at the gem and mineral show today in Denver. I have a bad feeling I got burned on this. I am new to this forum and would really really appriciate any help I could get in determining if it is real or not. It was supposedly found is Massachusetts. The print is not completely flat, it has bumps and hills in it, but the print is not an impression or indentation. 

[Troodon]

Welcome to the forum 

The relief is slight but I think it's real.  You have the positive side of the footprint the cast "f" in the attachment 

 

http://allanmccollum.net/allanmcnyc/reprints/simplified.html

[Rustdee]

Could it have been enhanced through painting or staining? The actual footprint has such a high contrast to the surrounding matrix. I'm afraid I am not very familiar with these footprints.

[FosselDumbDumb]

38 minutes ago, Troodon said:

Welcome to the forum 

The relief is slight but I think it's real.  You have the positive side of the footprint the cast "f" in the attachment 

 

http://allanmccollum.net/allanmcnyc/reprints/simplified.html

 

That makes me feel a lot better and the link you provided is very helpful. Thanks so much, you are the real MVP. 

[jpc]

There are some(or at least one) MA fossil footprint collector(s) on this forum.... What do you guys think?

[FosselDumbDumb]

7 minutes ago, jpc said:

There are some(or at least one) MA fossil footprint collector(s) on this forum.... What do you guys think?

 

I would LOVE the insight. 

[Fossildude19]

Not a huge collector of footprints, but I've seen a few in my day, and have hunted with a few guys who knew their stuff. 

 

My concern is that the outline doesn't really follow the contours. 

Has this been painted at all??

 

That doesn't mean it is fake, it may just mean that the print was not a really good one, and that they had to "enhance" it, to make it more attractive/sellable. 

 

Here is what I am seeing. 

 

 

It looks fairly real, - it could very well be a cast of a print, or what is called an "overprint". 

This would have been the mud which filled in an actual footprint. 

This was likely a few layers above the actual print. 

Hope that helps, some.
Regards, 

[FosselDumbDumb]

56 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Not a huge collector of footprints, but I've seen a few in my day, and have hunted with a few guys who knew their stuff. 

 

My concern is that the outline doesn't really follow the contours. 

Has this been painted at all??

 

That doesn't mean it is fake, it may just mean that the print was not a really good one, and that they had to "enhance" it, to make it more attractive/sellable. 

 

Here is what I am seeing. 

 

 

It looks fairly real, - it could very well be a cast of a print, or what is called an "overprint". 

This would have been the mud which filled in an actual footprint. 

This was likely a few layers above the actual print. 

Hope that helps, some.
Regards, 

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. Thanks for the insight. 

[doushantuo]

With tim on this one.

It's got that enhanced vibe to it.

Colour differences are logical if there are granulometric(grainsize) and/or mineralogical differences between print and matrix

Looks like they tried to upgrade a nondescript/"no provenance" tridactyl ichnite

[HamptonsDoc]

I love tracks but have the hardest time seeing them if they're not enhanced with some paint.  I've had many dealers point them out to me and I feel dumb because I see nothing!!

[Fossildude19]

So, for comparison, here is one of mine. 

It is a Grallator overprint. 

No enhancement.  Tough to see. 

 

With Low level lighting:

 

 

With low level lighting from the other side:

 

 

And finally, ... with enhancement: