Real Phacops?

[DatFossilBoy]

Hi,

I spotted this trilobite,pretty sure its a phacops, online for a relatively cheap price.

I was wondering If it was real because it looks really good and large.

He put a lighter for scale on the picture (guessing its 10 to 15cm)

What do you think?

Regards

[Kane]

As far as I can tell from these images, it looks fairly real. They are fairly common and not really worth faking (unless it is the P. armatus with all the spines). There is some crush damage on the glabella, and parts of the prep look like it was hacked rather than patiently prepared. Just to be sure, see if the seller can take a closer image of the eye lenses.

[DatFossilBoy]

2 minutes ago, Kane said:

As far as I can tell from these images, it looks fairly real. They are fairly common and not really worth faking (unless it is the P. armatus with all the spines). There is some crush damage on the glabella, and parts of the prep look like it was hacked rather than patiently prepared. Just to be sure, see if the seller can take a closer image of the eye lenses.

Great.Thanks a lot.

I will ask for more pictures and I will update you guys.

Regards

[Kane]

Also, is the pygidium there tucked underneath? Sometimes when the bug goes cheaply, it isn't complete. I'm hoping for you that it is both affordable and complete!

[Tidgy's Dad]

Yes, check the detail on the eye lenses. 

Also ensure they're not glued on, as sometimes a specimen is found with them damaged so odd ones are glued on, not faked , but composite specimens are the result. 

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

Only through these pictures, I think the business here is real. But I get really scared when I can't see the whole fossil. The  pygidium tangled up, or is still inside the matrix? But I also agree with others as it would be precisely the eye lenses that would leave no doubt as to their authenticity. But it really is good size and beautiful for exhibition.

[Douvilleiceras]

4 hours ago, Kane said:

P. armatus

Phacops armatus is not a valid species. The correct name is Drotops armatus. 

 

The trilobite in question is also a Drotops, but is of a different species. This example is Drotops megalomanicus.

[Kane]

18 minutes ago, Douvilleiceras said:

Phacops armatus is not a valid species. The correct name is Drotops armatus. 

 

The trilobite in question is also a Drotops, but is of a different species. This example is Drotops megalomanicus.

My mistake. That is what I meant. The main topic here was to determine if the specimen was real or fake.

[Fitch1979]

14 hours ago, Douvilleiceras said:

This example is Drotops megalomanicus.

exactly

 

Drotops megalomaticus: without the spines on all bodyparts

Drotops armatus: with the spines on all bodyparts

 

two from my collection: