Jump to content

Turtle from china


dsalles

Recommended Posts

I am interested in this turtle. According to the seller, it is from the Cretaceous of Liaoning, China.

What do you think - is it real?

Turtle Cretaceous Liaoning China.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highly doubt it. :unsure: 

 

Stuff like this is banned from export, so it is most likely a carved fake. 

I wouldn't touch it. 

Regards, 

    Tim    VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  VFOTM APRIL - 2015  

__________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."
John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks real enough. But as said these kinds of things are banned. My guess would be that it's a cast of a real one.

Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty blurry picture, but I don't see enough signs of prepping around it if that makes sense? It looks like it was pressed into the plate? Im a newbie but....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please refer to this thread first, a previous member, Han.T purchased one of these specimens and determined it to be fake.

Now, my two cents on this.

Turtle 1.jpg Turtle 2.jpg Turtle 3.jpg

Look there. 3 turtles similar to yours from different sellers on an internet auction site.. A quick search there reveals several being sold right now, and a dozen more up in the past month. Are these turtles truly that common?

 

I doubt so. Here's what a real one looks like. The imperfection, cracks and details proves its authenticity. The turtle you showed is so perfect it seems molded and carved. I wouldn't risk it.

Turtle 4.jpg Turtle 5.jpg

 

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, this was very unfair; what I did and I do apologize for that!

 

This was only an experiment: This is a genuine turtle I saw in oilshale's collection when I visited him in Shanghai!

 

What I wanted to demonstrate is, that we have to be very careful saying this is real or fake just by relying on blurry pictures. We have to be cautious with our wording. Nobody is perfect and error free. Without having the fossil in our hands, we should only express our doubts and should not tell right away "it's a fake" (even if we are convinced it is a fake).

 

By the way, at the first glance I myself had serious doubts when I saw this turtle. But the microscope revealed it is 100% genuine.

 

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, dsalles said:

Ok, this was very unfair; what I did and I do apologize for that!

 

This was only an experiment: This is a genuine turtle I saw in oilshale's collection when I visited him in Shanghai!

 

What I wanted to demonstrate is, that we have to be very careful saying this is real or fake just by relying on blurry pictures. We have to be cautious with our wording. Nobody is perfect and error free. Without having the fossil in our hands, we should only express our doubts and should not tell right away "it's a fake" (even if we are convinced it is a fake).

 

By the way, at the first glance I myself had serious doubts when I saw this turtle. But the microscope revealed it is 100% genuine.

 

Daniel

 

Your point is well made.  However, there are other ways to offer this advice without 'experimenting', in a deceptive manner, on the membership.  I'm glad that you explained the results of a physical examination.

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, dsalles said:

Ok, this was very unfair; what I did and I do apologize for that!

 

This was only an experiment: This is a genuine turtle I saw in oilshale's collection when I visited him in Shanghai!

 

What I wanted to demonstrate is, that we have to be very careful saying this is real or fake just by relying on blurry pictures. We have to be cautious with our wording. Nobody is perfect and error free. Without having the fossil in our hands, we should only express our doubts and should not tell right away "it's a fake" (even if we are convinced it is a fake).

 

By the way, at the first glance I myself had serious doubts when I saw this turtle. But the microscope revealed it is 100% genuine.

 

Daniel

 

Daniel, you made a good point. And yes, your thread proved that some of us are too presumptuous by concluding that this specimen looks too good to be true, so it's fake.

 

But I do not appreciate what you did. Members here often take their time out to search through the internet, going through similar specimens and old threads in order to better offer advice to others here. Maybe we aren't always correct on our verdict, but we try to be fair, and we do so on good will. I wouldn't like us to have to fear being part of another experiment. Please don't do this again.

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dsalles said:

Ok, this was very unfair; what I did and I do apologize for that!

 

This was only an experiment: This is a genuine turtle I saw in oilshale's collection when I visited him in Shanghai!

 

What I wanted to demonstrate is, that we have to be very careful saying this is real or fake just by relying on blurry pictures. We have to be cautious with our wording. Nobody is perfect and error free. Without having the fossil in our hands, we should only express our doubts and should not tell right away "it's a fake" (even if we are convinced it is a fake).

 

By the way, at the first glance I myself had serious doubts when I saw this turtle. But the microscope revealed it is 100% genuine.

 

Daniel

Wow. :ank:

Pretty disappointing, in my opinion. :( :unsure:

So, ... now, ... we have to do a reverse google image search,  to try and make sure we're not being tested, "experimented" upon, ... or played? <_< :angry:

 

Thanks for making the point.  However,... I  really do not agree with the way this was done. 

It would never have even occurred to me, to try this type of "experiment". :unsure: 

 

I was under the impression this was for sale now, and given that knowledge, based my answer on the laws governing sales of vertebrate fossils from China.

I will be more careful  in my pronouncements from now on, ... or maybe, I just won't voice an opinion any longer. :mellow:

 

 

    Tim    VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  VFOTM APRIL - 2015  

__________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."
John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind that much that you made this thread as an experiment. But I'm glad you didn't wait a long time before revealing the true purpose.

 

To be fair though. It's not like the photo was altered (or at least that's what I'm assuming :ighappy:). So technically the fossil should speak for itself.

Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think ultimately something like this should be framed as an 'experiment' since given the facts carefully articulated by @Fossildude19 these fossils are factually

 

1) Banned from export

2) Often hosted on sites like Ebay .. and unless it is a 'reproduction' (aka. fake) the seller could possibly run afoul of Ebay's TOS or the law. 

 

  So, all of the members .. knowing only what they were told gave an immediate understanding that what you were seeing was probably a fake fossil. It was a Red Herring at best, and knowing that they were used as unwitting participants of an experiment erodes trust. 

 

  Apologies aside .. You must understand that it mostly will erode trust in anything that you might want to have evaluated in the future, and this is for most of us, a hobby that we enjoy to share for those willing to treat each other in a like manner.  (ie. the old adage treat others as you would like to be treated stands)

 

  Now, if you had told us that you already knew that this was a fake or a real fossil  ... (that I might point out even you believed to be fake before looking through a microscope ) and wanted to see if we could guess based on this partially substandard image.  You may have had many more cautious appraisals, especially if you mentioned its current location.  And you would most certainly be asked to provide better photos from obtuse angles, close ups of the matrix etc ....  It would have been possibly sifted over for any possible clues .. before anyone made any definitive statement.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Cheers,

Brett

 

PS. Not sure it was a good experiment.  You have to control for bias given the limited information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Brett Breakin' Rocks said:

I think ultimately something like this should be framed as an 'experiment' since given the facts carefully articulated by @Fossildude19 these fossils are factually

 

1) Banned from export

2) Often hosted on sites like Ebay .. and unless it is a 'reproduction' (aka. fake) the seller could possibly run afoul of Ebay's TOS or the law. 

 

  So, all of the members .. knowing only what they were told gave an immediate understanding that what you were seeing was probably a fake fossil. It was a Red Herring at best, and knowing that they were used as unwitting participants of an experiment erodes trust. 

 

  Apologies aside .. You must understand that it mostly will erode trust in anything that you might want to have evaluated in the future, and this is for most of us, a hobby that we enjoy to share for those willing to treat each other in a like manner.  (ie. the old adage treat others as you would like to be treated stands)

 

  Now, if you had told us that you already knew that this was a fake or a real fossil  ... (that I might point out even you believed to be fake before looking through a microscope ) and wanted to see if we could guess based on this partially substandard image.  You may have had many more cautious appraisals, especially if you mentioned its current location.  And you would most certainly be asked to provide better photos from obtuse angles, close ups of the matrix etc ....  It would have been possibly sifted over for any possible clues .. before anyone made any definitive statement.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Cheers,

Brett

 

PS. Not sure it was a good experiment.  You have to control for bias given the limited information.

 

Very well said, Brett.  You were able to articulate your thoughts much better than I could articulate mine. (I was admittedly miffed at having been boondoggled.)   

 

A better "experiment " would have been to take multiple pictures of fossils, tell us that one is real (or fake) and ask us to decide which was which.

I just would not have gone about this in this manner. 

 

    Tim    VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  VFOTM APRIL - 2015  

__________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."
John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t say any members commenting made any wrong or impulsive assertions and actually gave very good advice from the information provided. Part of the assertion on these kinds of specimens comes from the background of each case, and in this situation the background was sketchy and waved red flags.  

I don’t approve of the method of conducting this “experiment”, to me it’s done more harm than good with regard to members trust.

 

Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic has been an interesting read for me. Not so much for info on fossil turtles, spurious or not; but in folks reaction to deception. Some of the most informative experiments in the field of Social Psychology employed deception or potential stress/trauma to participants. Since that time ('60s, '70s) guidelines/standards for acceptable experimentation with human and animal subjects have been "tightened." Many would argue that this provides for more "ethical" research and it certainly protects subjects from possible harm. However, restrictions on design would have surely prevented the demonstration of some of the darker aspects lurking in Humankind.

 

Two famous experiments come readily to mind. The interested reader is invited to search YouTube with the two following search topics: 1) Milgram, obedience to authority,

2) Stanford prison experiment. More in depth discussions of these topics are no doubt available elsewhere on the Internet, but I believe, the YouTube choice is more likely to provide a brief overview.   

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, also are remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understood Daniel right, the three points he wanted to make are:

 

- relying only on photos, it is very difficult to judge a fossil right.

- therefore we have to be very careful with our wording.

- we immediately expect fossils from China to be faked ("must be a fake!" - this is also my immediate reaction when I see a fossil from China. I don't even look at them anymore).

 

Therefore I am a bit surprised about this very harsh reaction ("deceptive manner"). The experimental set up was  - here I agree - not appropriate and could have been better, but the result made me think. In a way, it is an eye-opener for me.

 

 

Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes (Confucius, 551 BC - 479 BC).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes as a test of the effectiveness of the Fossil Forum as a community to ID if a fossil is real or not, there is just a little bias in this experiment, the sample size is small: 5 people out of 21,458 members (0.02%) had a chance to respond. I appreciate this is probably because you felt bad about the deception and didn't want it to play out any further.

 

This meant that the community didn't have a full chance to do what it does best. Maybe a few people might throw out a verdict, but then a dialogue evolves over time with people offering their different experiences. Sometimes the ones who made an early decision change their minds and graciously (if somewhat reluctantly on rare occasions) accept that the weight of the evidence supports only one conclusion.

 

So this demonstrates that a few people thought it was a fake based on the sketchy info. but does not demonstrate that TFF is ineffective at identifying false fossils.

 

Sounds like your heart was in the right place and you were thinking of the greater good but it has not eroded my faith in our community one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept the veracity of Oilshale's assertion as to the authenticity of this particular fossil. However, when one considers the sophisticated methods utilized in the faking of fossils, fine art and antiquities, I will choose a cautious approach and always seek the generous advice and the expertise of forum members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't ever purchase fossils but I find this forum to be very interesting and informative.  As a non purchaser, I have a few comments.

 

First of all- the purpose of this forum is to protect consumers.  Is it better to not spend a lot of money on a fake than to get a good deal on something real?  Most people who submit to this forum are looking for protection.  I appreciate the caution shown by commenters.  Although this test demonstrated the trend towards rejection of a specimen, the original poster did omit some important information-the asking price.  This fine specimen, if for sale, would likely be very expensive.  Caveat Emptor

 

Next- how good can fakes get?  There are many bad fakes out there.  Snolly's fish comes to mind.  However, In the era of 3D printing, it may eventually be a function of material science.  One should be able to make exceptional fakes that photograph well.  There are tests on can do in hand but advice from images has to play the odds.

 

Third- The best advice comes with supplementary data- Is the fossil common or rare?  Rare fossils are rare.  Does it come from a region known for sophisticated fakes? Then you might have a sophisticated fake.  Does it come from a region where export is illegal?  Then it may be illegally obtained, or faked.  Has someone seen the identical fossil someplace else? Then it might be a duplicate.

 

Fourth- this excellent website has so many sophisticated members that many of the more uncommon specimens and many of the good specimens for sale, are already known to someone.  Given time, Oilshale might have commented.   Remember the saber tooth skull?  The person who did the prep confirmed the specimen was real.  

 

Finally, maybe Oilshale has a fake turtle in his collection. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jdeutsch said:

I don't ever purchase fossils but I find this forum to be very interesting and informative.  As a non purchaser, I have a few comments.

 

First of all- the purpose of this forum is to protect consumers.  Is it better to not spend a lot of money on a fake than to get a good deal on something real?  Most people who submit to this forum are looking for protection.  I appreciate the caution shown by commenters.  Although this test demonstrated the trend towards rejection of a specimen, the original poster did omit some important information-the asking price.  This fine specimen, if for sale, would likely be very expensive.  Caveat Emptor

 

Next- how good can fakes get?  There are many bad fakes out there.  Snolly's fish comes to mind.  However, In the era of 3D printing, it may eventually be a function of material science.  One should be able to make exceptional fakes that photograph well.  There are tests on can do in hand but advice from images has to play the odds.

 

Third- The best advice comes with supplementary data- Is the fossil common or rare?  Rare fossils are rare.  Does it come from a region known for sophisticated fakes? Then you might have a sophisticated fake.  Does it come from a region where export is illegal?  Then it may be illegally obtained, or faked.  Has someone seen the identical fossil someplace else? Then it might be a duplicate.

 

Fourth- this excellent website has so many sophisticated members that many of the more uncommon specimens and many of the good specimens for sale, are already known to someone.  Given time, Oilshale might have commented.   Remember the saber tooth skull?  The person who did the prep confirmed the specimen was real.  

 

Finally, maybe Oilshale has a fake turtle in his collection. :)

 

 

I have been betrayed with other fossils, but not with this one - I prepped the turtle myself (at least part of it). Daniel did not know this when he saw the turtle. He took a photo but did not tell me what he had in mind (so I was taken by surprise). And no legal problem for me - I live in Shanghai. I can buy and sell what ever I want as long as the fossils stay in China.

Thomas

Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes (Confucius, 551 BC - 479 BC).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...