Jump to content

Recommended Posts

lexandc

Hi guys, 

 

Recently I saw a Keichousaurus fossil at the bidding site. It is suspiciously cheap, the seller does not describe the condition of the specimen very clearly, except claiming it to be "authentic."  Needless to say, it is already raising a lot of red flags.

 

I am no expert in fossils. I just started collecting 2 months ago. I read some articles on TFF and know that Keichousaurus is one of the most commmonly fabricated. 

 

However, from the picture provided by the seller, it looks to me, that it could be at least partially authentic. The tail looks fake, but that head and neck looks ok to me. The body though, i couldnt tell. The color is too dark, it could be paint? May be some part of it is real under the paint? 

 

I think it has a very high chance to be a fake, but I dont know for sure. I am hoping that maybe someone can point to me, which part of it is fake.. Or real if there is any. 

 

Thanks

Screenshot_20190829_170439.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pemphix

Difficult to tell, having only one photo with no ability to enlarge/zoom.

To tell more, a view from the back of the plate and the sides would help and a close-up or enlargeable one from the fossil(?).

But judging by now, i would say a composite with some resto, but no obvious fake.

Neck/head-section seems to be from another individual same as the tail, too.

@Crazyhen may tell more, too...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lexandc

Here is the back of the plate. I didnt realize the back of the plate can help identifying the authenticity. 

Screenshot_20190829_191259.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mioplosus_Lover24

I think this is atleast a fake/composite, the shoulder bones and ribs are almost certainly faked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
steelhead9

I believe this to be an authentic keichousaurus. One section of the neck is composited and the skull is likely painted on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobby Rico

Think the same as @steelhead9 but sharper pictures are needed to be more sure. It is not a great specimen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digit

These are indeed some of the most faked and/or altered fossils out there so you are right to seek some advise before plunking down some money on one. I do not have one in my collection (I tend to prefer fossils I find myself) and I don't think that I've even seen one outside of images on the internet (though I may have come across one in a museum). I'm no where near an expert in sussing out the real fossils from the fakers but I can offer one piece of advice--do an internet image search for 'Keichousaurus' and compare the item in question to the array of images available online. True, some of the online images will also be fakes but I think you'll quickly see that on quite a number of the nicer looking specimens (that are undoubtedly authentic) the bones are a bit more delicate looking. If course, if you had the item in hand you'd be able to look for the three dimensionality of the bones--most poor quality specimens have the missing bones painted in which leaves them rather flat. I've heard that many better quality fakes/restorations will model bone material out of an epoxy or carved out of the matrix but close-up examination will reveal such clumsy attempts.

 

It's quite tricky to fully decide what parts of a Keichousaurus might be real, restored, or just imaginatively made-up from a single photo or two. The better specimens (that come with a higher price tag) will often show close-up images and ones that show 3D bone with decent texture. I think in the end that if the price seems incredibly cheap then you are still getting what you paid for. If I really wanted one of these in my collection, I'd likely save up and find one that is undeniably real and a nice quality specimen.

 

Picking an image at random from the hundreds available in an online search, note how more delicate and defined the bones look on this (very expensive) real specimen compared to the one you are thinking about purchasing.

 

keichousaurus-3650-3400-15.jpg

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobby Rico

I did this post so members can make visual comparison . It may help.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pemphix
3 hours ago, lexandc said:

Here is the back of the plate. I didnt realize the back of the plate can help identifying the authenticity. 

Screenshot_20190829_191259.jpg

 

In a lot of cases, the forgers preparing the display-side with a very high amount of precision to hide any odd work.

But in a lot of cases, they forget to hide their tracks on the sides and on the back.

What you can see here, is that the back is completely covered with some kind of resin.

This can be made to stabilize the whole thing, but can be some kind of tricky business (e.g. to hide casts), too.

In this case, the whole thing seems odd. You may see that the cracks does not fit very well to the opposite part of it and colour of matrix is also not consistent.

Spending a lot of time for putting the resin is also unusual, cause this fossil is a rather common one there.

I would stay away (by the way importing such fossils from China is illegal - if it is real).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lexandc

Thanks guys, i have been having second thoughts on this Keichousaurus. NGL i am very tempted by the super low price. But the risk is not worth it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pemphix
3 hours ago, Mioplosus_Lover24 said:

I think this is atleast a fake/composite, the shoulder bones and ribs are almost certainly faked.

 

2 hours ago, steelhead9 said:

I believe this to be an authentic keichousaurus. One section of the neck is composited and the skull is likely painted on.

 

2 hours ago, Bobby Rico said:

Think the same as @steelhead9 but sharper pictures are needed to be more sure. It is not a great specimen. 

 

Yes it is a composite, but i think not a fake.

No hints on painting here, as far as i see.

Pls. remind that this little fellow lies on his back. So the view is definitely another than the more common dorsal view, see here: https://archive.org/details/functionalmorpho39link

This view is exact what i would expect in this position. 

I agree that it is not a great specimen and that sharper photos are needed...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobby Rico

Sorry my phone posted twice 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobby Rico
On 29/08/2019 at 4:35 PM, Pemphix said:

agree that it is not a great specimen and that sharper photos are needed...

It is funny every time you see an keichousaurus for sale it is in a blurry photo just like Bigfoot sightings. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pemphix
On ‎02‎.‎09‎.‎2019 at 11:05 AM, Bobby Rico said:

It is funny every time you see an keichousaurus for sale it is in a blurry photo just like Bigfoot sightings. :D

You really think the the initial photo is big and sharp enough to see anything odd like painitings etc. ?:unsure::headscratch:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pemphix
On 9/2/2019 at 2:31 AM, Crazyhen said:

In my view, this specimen is genuine, but badly prepped with acid and mechanical means.  The slab was broken into several pieces and that might explain why there is a heavily resin covered back (poorly glued together).  This whitish grey coloured matrix is relatively less common and is more fragile than the black matrix.

 

Let me show you a natural form for comparison.

IMG_0831.JPG

Isnt't that what you've posted the "normal" layer (black, hard, with calcite veins) ?

I know that there's another layer with very thin and fragile "Sheets" and i agree that it looks like that what was the initial photo.

I am not sure about the neck (incl. skull), seems odd. In best case a VERY bad prep job with missing parts and a big gap... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobby Rico
3 hours ago, Pemphix said:

You really think the the initial photo is big and sharp enough to see anything odd like painitings etc. ?:unsure::headscratch:

I did not say that, you just did.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pemphix
3 hours ago, Bobby Rico said:

I did not say that, you just did.  ;)

Did not get it - sorry...:headscratch:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazyhen

 

14 hours ago, Pemphix said:

Isnt't that what you've posted the "normal" layer (black, hard, with calcite veins) ?

I know that there's another layer with very thin and fragile "Sheets" and i agree that it looks like that what was the initial photo.

I am not sure about the neck (incl. skull), seems odd. In best case a VERY bad prep job with missing parts and a big gap... 

Yes, the normal layer is the black, hard slab.  The natural form means the fossil is seen naturally after splitting the slab without the need of any preparation.

 

The neck has missing parts, the skull is worn off and thus it appears odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fossilguy312

Glad to see that you skipped this one. I'd stay away from this personally even though pieces of it are quite possibly real. Even if it's not "fake" I don't like the idea of a composited specimen, and this is very likely at least composited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×