Is it Real? Trilobite

[Rock Hound]

Another member expressed some possible doubt, about this "Trilobite from Vancouver, Canada".

 

Fair enough.  I am willing to find out what others more knowledgeable than myself think about the specimen in question.  Educate me.

 

I am working with an inexpensive Android phone, but doing my best to offer a few good pictures with good lighting.  International measurement scale shown.

 

 

[Rock Hound]

[Rock Hound]

[Rock Hound]

[Rock Hound]

Definitely rock, underneath.  Tell me what you think about the possible nature, of this specimen.  Thanks in advance.

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by Rock Hound

[Tidgy's Dad]

I don't think it's a particularly great specimen, but it seems real to me. 

[Ludwigia]

It certainly does appear to be real. The only question for me is if it's really from Vancouver.

[Kane]

I've brightened and grey-scaled the photo. The circled areas seem problematic to me, suggestive at least of an attempt at restoration. There may be some kind of thick coating to obscure the fact that it was not fully prepared, as well as possibly damaged. It would be helpful to have a close image of the eye, to see if the lenses are present.

[Fossildude19]

I also see what could be air bubbles in places:

 

 

 

[Kane]

Good eye, Tim.

I’d also add that the matrix does not appear worked at all, which led me as well to suspect a cast and placement on a piece of stone. Another point in favour of a cast is how the pleural tips don’t seem to terminate correctly.

[Rock Hound]

7 hours ago, Kane said:

I've brightened and grey-scaled the photo. The circled areas seem problematic to me, suggestive at least of an attempt at restoration. There may be some kind of thick coating to obscure the fact that it was not fully prepared, as well as possibly damaged. It would be helpful to have a close image of the eye, to see if the lenses are present.

As you wish.  I tried to get better pics of the eyes, etc.

 

[Rock Hound]

[daves64]

My vote is for a mold placed on a flatish rock. With scratches to make it look like it was prepped. But that's just my opinion. 

Edited May 8, 2022 by daves64

[Rock Hound]

25 minutes ago, daves64 said:

My vote is for a mold placed on a flatish rock. With scratches to make it look like it was prepped. But that's just my opinion. 

Those scratches looked very fresh when I first purchased the specimen.  I then used a wet paintbrush to "clean" the surface of the specimen thoroughly, which shouldn't have caused any damage.  After drying, the scratches had darkened.  They no longer looked fresh.  I assumed the fresh scratches were just salesmanship?

Edited May 8, 2022 by Rock Hound

[Rock Hound]

If it turns out to not be a real trilobite specimen, it should at least make a good display decoration for my Shark Tooth collection.  So, not a total loss?

[Kane]

I am now convinced this is indeed a cast set on a rock. 
If you are happy with it, then it is no loss as one can display replicas just fine. It is also a conversation starter about both trilobites in general, and the market in the creation of forgeries and souvenirs.

[Mark Kmiecik]

I wouldn't waste my money on it. You can get the real deal in better condition for probably about the same amount of money.