Cambropallas trilobites, a study in restoration

[Aurelius]

I recently had the opportunity to obtain three specimens of the famous trilobite Cambropallas at a very low price. I've always wanted one of these; preferably a real one, although the fake/restored ones also interested me, if I could find one for the right price. So this was too good an opportunity to miss.

 

Before I say anything else, I should say that I am a long way from being a trilobite expert. I only have half a dozen cheap examples in my collection, although I am interested in Moroccan fossils in general, and the repair/restoration/forgery that you often find in fossils from this country.

 

I'll look at each of the three specimens in turn. If anybody has anything to add, or anything they wish to correct me upon, then please do! I apologise for any incorrect terminology or flat-out wrong information I may inadvertently give.

 

Specimen A

Matrix: 27cm

 

This trilobite was complete and undamaged. At first glance, I thought the whole thing might be a cast, because it had an unreal orange hue. The photo below was taken after I had already rinsed a section near the head under the tap, to test my hypothesis that this was some form of pigment. It was, and it revealed the black surface seen towards the top.

 

 

 I decided to soak the whole block, and gently brush it with a toothbrush to remove all of the pigment, which came off easily. This was the result.

 

 

Far from being faked, it appears to be approximately 65% original. Clearly, much of the right-hand side and the head shield was lost, presumably in a bad split. The missing pieces are constructed from an unknown substance, perhaps some kind of modelling clay (which is how I will refer to it for the sake of argument) or soft resin. It is soft when wet and can be cut away from the fossil with a sharp knife. I was interested to see that even those parts of the trilobite that are present are still covered in the modelling clay, presumably to smooth them out and improve the overall appearance - even though, in fact, it completely obscures all of the original detail. I don't doubt that virtually all of the left side of the thorax is present beneath the clay.

 

I believe that this part of the trilobite is probably authentic: 

 

 

However, it may not be quite as simple as that, as the next specimen shows. 

[Aurelius]

Specimen B
Matrix: 28.5cm

 

This trilobite was broken, hence me getting it very cheaply. Here is is pre-washing:

 

 

 

 

 

Here it is post-washing:

 

 

And a bit closer: 

 

One of the most interesting parts of this trilobite is the break itself.

 

 

This shows a confusing jumble of resin, glue and original stone. Interestingly, the actual matrix itself is a forgery, constructed of resin with some added sand. You can clearly see the casting bubbles in it. The only conclusion I can reach here is that the whole piece is constructed from the shattered remains of at least one authentic trilobite, placed into a completely fraudulent matrix, along with numerous pieces of modelling clay to form the missing sections.

 

 

Of course, this single break doesn't really tell us what is going on through the rest of the piece, or where there may be original pieces of trilobite which are completely obscured by the 'restoration'. But based on what can actually be seen, this is my interpretation of which sections must be original.

 

[Aurelius]

Specimen C
Matrix: 29cm

 

I have not washed this specimen yet, because it seems to be one of the best of the bunch in some ways, and I am wary of causing damage. 

 

 

 

The break between the two halves shows no evidence of fakery whatsoever, just one area which has been glued. The whole thing appears to be genuine rock, in sharp contrast to specimen B [Edit to add: Some parts of the very bottom and edges of the matrix are made of resin.

 

 

The details themselves also look largely genuine, with just a few smears of modelling clay on top of them. Sections of the cephalon and head sheild seem to be missing and replaced.

 

Interestingly, even apparently original sections of the thorax with clearly visible pleural segmentation have been crudely re-enforced with scratches. There's no logical reason for this, since it doesn't improve the aethetics one iota, and I can only assume that this was part of a production-line process where someone just did what he thought he was supposed to do.

 

I'm not sure how much of the cephalon is original, although hints of the original head shield are visible beneath the clay used to 'improve' it.

 

Example of scratches intentionally made during prep

 

 

This is my approximate interpretation of which parts of this trilobite are genuine. I am unsure about the cephalon. I don't like the look of it, on the whole, but some of it may be genuine and covered in clay. Note how the orange pigment extends beyond the bounds of the trilobite.

 

 

That's it! If anyone has anything to add, then please let me know. I am undecided yet as to what my next course of action will be - I may attempt to remove all of the restoration from one of these pieces, and see what's left, and certainly they would all benefit from at least some cleaning up.

[Innocentx]

1 hour ago, Aurelius said:

this was part of a production-line process where someone just did what he thought he was supposed to do.

Rather messy job on the pleural spines not matching up on the first two, right side. Interesting to think about the people doing this work and how fast they may be required to go. Conjures up images of sweat and noise.

Hope you have good luck in your endeavor.

[LordTrilobite]

Quite interesting. I can't say that I've seen "washed" Cambropallas before. Very informative on what parts are real.

[Tidgy's Dad]

Very interesting and useful post.

Thanks for sharing.

And I think you're pretty much correct in all your assumptions. 

[Johannes]

Mentioning 65% of your first shown trilobite are real, might be a little bit of a wild guess... The red marked areas are (maybe) original fossil material, from my experience in this topic not guaranting that those puzzle parts are from the same individual...

[Malcolmt]

Very interesting post with great pictures. Unfortunately  am wary of most Moroccan material that I have not prepped from scratch myself.

 

[Aurelius]

On 06/09/2018 at 9:52 AM, Johannes said:

Mentioning 65% of your first shown trilobite are real, might be a little bit of a wild guess... The red marked areas are (maybe) original fossil material, from my experience in this topic not guaranting that those puzzle parts are from the same individual...

 

Not a guess - the picture doesn't show it as clearly, but there are very clear signs of proper fossil material throughout the entire area that I indicated. It's just been covered in material to try and improve the aesthetics. That isn't to say that there may not be gaps, or compositing.  

[bcfossilcollector]

Very informative!