Russian Audoliceras resto?

[Mochaccino]

Hello,

 

How much of this Russian ammonite seems natural and original? Any compositing or restoration (aside from the obviously poorly-restored inner whorl section)? To me it looks good aside from the inner whorl, but sometimes they restore these super well so it can be hard to tell.

 

@Kanopus

 

 

[Shaun-DFW Fossils]

1 hour ago, Mochaccino said:

Hello,

 

How much of this Russian ammonite seems natural and original? Any compositing or restoration (aside from the obviously poorly-restored inner whorl section)? To me it looks good aside from the inner whorl, but sometimes they restore these super well so it can be hard to tell.

 

@Kanopus

 

 

Sorry I can’t answer the question but I wanted to comment that I like the coloration. I knew ammonites were like gold, but to be colored like gold..😂

[Ludwigia]

Looks basically good to me, although one can see that here and there a bit of restoration has been done. Has the seller mentioned that?

[Mochaccino]

27 minutes ago, Shaun-DFW Fossils said:

Sorry I can’t answer the question but I wanted to comment that I like the coloration. I knew ammonites were like gold, but to be colored like gold..😂

 

It does look cool but I believe the true color is more white/silver, and the "gold" is probably more a reflection of the orange  light source

 

10 minutes ago, Ludwigia said:

Looks basically good to me, although one can see that here and there a bit of restoration has been done. Has the seller mentioned that?

 

Seller didn't mention anything. Now that you mention it and I've taken a closer look, I see more parts that seem to have been filled/restod. Would you agree with this:

 

Quite obvious on second look. 

Edited January 9 by Mochaccino

[Ludwigia]

1 hour ago, Mochaccino said:

Now that you mention it and I've taken a closer look, I see more parts that seem to have been filled/restod. Would you agree with this:

 

I would agree that the inner whorls have been worked on and I'm seeing small repairs in the areas I've marked below, but I would say that the piece is pretty good, since most of these ammonites have been restored in one way or another from what I've seen of them.

 

 

 

[RuMert]

Complete (coiled and uncoiled) ammonites of this kind are rarely found, but often sold. So guess yourself😀

[SPrice]

Put a UV blacklight on it to see if it reveals resto areas or otherwise.

[aeon.rocks]

Like most of these this is a restored composite, a piece of art for display. It has been put together (composited) from at least 3 different pieces (which don't belong to the same specimen) and the inner coil is totally fake - restored with apoxy or resin. It also seems there has been restoration on some glued parts (glued in 4 or 5 areas). Is it worth buying? Judge yourself, but the price is often very high imho, especially considering the composition and as such shuld be marketed as fakery, art for display, not as a natural fossil! Complete Audoliceras are extremelly rare, usually only partial pieces are found and such composited display pieces often put together from different partial specimens to be sold at a high price to unaware customers.

Edited January 10 by aeon.rocks

[Mochaccino]

11 hours ago, aeon.rocks said:

Like most of these this is a restored composite, a piece of art for display. It has been put together (composited) from at least 3 different pieces (which don't belong to the same specimen) and the inner coil is totally fake - restored with apoxy or resin. It also seems there has been restoration on some glued parts (glued in 4 or 5 areas). Is it worth buying? Judge yourself, but the price is often very high imho, especially considering the composition and as such shuld be marketed as fakery, art for display, not as a natural fossil! Complete Audoliceras are extremelly rare, usually only partial pieces are found and such composited display pieces often put together from different partial specimens to be sold at a high price to unaware customers.

That is a surprise, I was expecting some epoxy/resin fill but wasn't thinking there was any compositing. If I had to guess, are these parts pointed out by @Ludwigia the boundaries between composite pieces? I did not think of composition since everything is embedded in one block of matrix, unless that is also faked?

 

[aeon.rocks]

Quote

If I had to guess, are these parts pointed out by @Ludwigia the boundaries between composite pieces? I did not think of composition since everything is embedded in one block of matrix, unless that is also faked?

 

Yes. In best case it's composited from (just) 2 parts (and a restored inner coil), I marked the intersections between parts in pic bellow (I'm not sure about the left part, could be a match, would need to check in hand, but the center is imho definitelly from a different specimen). And yes, in my opinion it has been transferred (embedded) into a matrix block (you can still see glue remains on matrix next to the specimen's edge in some places (where arrows point in the photo bellow)). An examination in hand would be needed to confirm all mentioned, but that's my opinion.

 

 

These are always restored, so you need to be carefull what you are paying for - Russian Audoliceras are more often "restored to make complete" than Moroccan trilobites IMHO. I have even heard a story about these ammonites cut in 2 and placed in matrix, in a way that from one ammonite you get 2 matrix display pieces. Not sure if that is true, but fact is big heteromorph ammonites like this are rarely found complete, so there's possibly a lot of artistic work going on in the background, when you see complete examples like this... And they are nice, shiny, so people pay a good price; restoration, art or fakery (however you want to call it) worth doing.

 

 

 

 

Here's another example of how these are composited - imho this is a 2 part composition - a good job, but too small inner coil was used to match with a much thicker "body chamber", placed in matrix of course: 

 

 

 

Edited January 11 by aeon.rocks

[Mochaccino]

1 hour ago, aeon.rocks said:

 

Yes. In best case it's composited from (just) 2 parts (and a restored inner coil), I marked the intersections between parts in pic bellow (I'm not sure about the left part, could be a match, would need to check in hand, but the center is imho definitelly from a different specimen). And yes, in my opinion it has been transferred (embedded) into a matrix block (you can still see glue remains on matrix next to the specimen's edge in some places (where arrows point in the photo bellow)). An examination in hand would be needed to confirm all mentioned, but that's my opinion.

 

 

These are always restored, so you need to be carefull what you are paying for - Russian Audoliceras are more often "restored to make complete" than Moroccan trilobites IMHO. I have even heard a story about these ammonites cut in 2 and placed in matrix, in a way that from one ammonite you get 2 matrix display pieces. Not sure if that is true, but fact is big heteromorph ammonites like this are rarely found complete, so there's possibly a lot of artistic work going on in the background, when you see complete examples like this... And they are nice, shiny, so people pay a good price; restoration, art or fakery (however you want to call it) worth doing.

 

 

 

 

Here's another example of how these are composited - imho this is a 2 part composition - a good job, but too small inner coil was used to match with a much thicker "body chamber", placed in matrix of course: 

 

 

 

 

 

I definitely see it! And those weird glue remains bothered me as well but I wasn't sure what they were, I thought residual bits of iridescent shell in matrix but evidently not. Thank you very much for your assessment. I will be staying far away from this one, Might not even be worth searching for a nice unrestored one, if they even exist.

[aeon.rocks]

Quote

I thought residual bits of iridescent shell in matrix but...

 

Could be, in some cases, but i think in this case no - looks more like glue spill to me. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to bet that the center doesn't belong to the same specimen and was transferred to matrix block (possibly the rest of the ammonite is in original matrix).

 

Quote

Might not even be worth searching for a nice unrestored one, if they even exist.

 

IMHO they don't exist in the market, unless you have good connections with local Russian collectors, you will have a hard time finding unrestored one, because imho even partial pieces and uncomplete parts get restored, not worth selling broken. Or to put it different, why sell a good candidate for restoration for cheap, if you can make 10x more money with restored... It's the same story as with spiny and rare Russian trilobites in the market, you only see "perfect" examples sold, I have never seen a partial Boedaspis or a molted Hoplolichas or a broken Lonchodomas etc... offered for sale in online shops or fossil shows! They are always perfect! 😉 

Edited January 11 by aeon.rocks

[Mochaccino]

5 minutes ago, aeon.rocks said:

 

Could be, in some cases, but i think in this case no - looks more like glue spill to me. 

 

 

IMHO they don't exist in the market, unless you have good connections with local Russian collectors, you will have a hard time finding unrestored one, because imho even partial pieces and uncomplete parts get restored, not worth selling broken. Or to put it different, why sell a good candidate for restoration for cheap, if you can make 10x more money with restored... It's the same story as with spiny and rare Russian trilobites in the market, you only see "perfect" examples sold, I have never seen a partial Boedaspis or a molted Hoplolichas or a broken Lonchodomas etc... offered for sale in online shops or fossil shows! They are always perfect! 😉 

Good points you make. What a shame! I absolutely hate restoration/compositing or any sort of fakery. These Russian fossils are an art business, not a fossil business.

[RuMert]

7 hours ago, Mochaccino said:

searching for a nice unrestored one, if they even exist

Close to 0% probability and they are given to museums or priced accordingly. A guy wrote a trip report from the site they are usually found, in a full day he only managed to find 1 fragment of a poor quality and considered himself lucky. Note it (Ulyanovsk) is a region with a long history of commercial fossil hunting and selling overpriced ammos to rich people as vanity objects

Edited January 11 by RuMert

[aeon.rocks]

Yes, I guess folks who buy these are buying for decoration, not for a systematic collection. 

 

Quote

 I absolutely hate restoration/compositing or any sort of fakery. These Russian fossils are an art business, not a fossil business.

 

Ok. But, lets not be wrongful here, most of the fossil business is art and everybody who is buying fossils wants a good deal, the biggest, the most complete or a good price. Would you pay thousands of dollars for a partial Audoliceras? I bet you wouldn't. And it probably wouldn't pay the costs of the trip, excavation and preparation, if they were very cheap. I just mean, probably no one would go and collect them, if they weren't commercialy interesting! However, when you say "art business" you need to distinguish between a good restoration and a fakery (like schizochroal eyes on lichids), but a restoration is not necessary a bad thing, if it's done right and if disclosed - you just need to know what you are paying for. I guess in this case you didn't.

 

 

Imho Russians are great preparators and they can do a preparation, a restoration or even a composition like this, because their fossils are fantastic preserved, so in a way they can bring fossils back to life. But they are no exception...

 

Plenty of other fossils are prepped for "decoration" or "display", just think about restored dinosaur skeletons in museums, Chinese sabertooth cat skulls or other restored verts, inlayed Green River Formation fish plates or big shiny Canadian ammolite ammonites (a lot of artistic tricks involved there too to pop up the colors and people wouldn't pay thousands of dollars, if those were available unprepped, but that's another story) or common Madagascar cut and polished ammonites (shiny, cheap and common, when polished definitely not a natural condition as they are found in, but people love them)... Etc! Almost all fossils in the biznis are prepped for display. Even the most recent hit - a giant sea monster - pliosaur skull featured in the new Attenborough BBC documentary is restored! In my opinion Steve and Chris did a fantastic job to restore the teeth and bring the skull back to life! Makes it an even better display piece for the Etches Collection museum. Just saying, don't hate the restoration, instead learn to follow the caveat emptor rule, when buying any fossil. Do the research.

 

 

Edited January 11 by aeon.rocks

[FossilDAWG]

I guess I am the exception, but I am OK with a restoration as long as it is anatomically correct, the restoration can be recognized but not too obvious, and the price is reasonable.  I will never be able to afford a naturally perfect Didymoceras, for example, but a good well done composite would find a home in my cabinet.

 

Don

[Mochaccino]

1 hour ago, aeon.rocks said:

Yes, I guess folks who buy these are buying for decoration, not for a systematic collection. 

 

 

Ok. But, lets not be wrongful here, most of the fossil business is art and everybody who is buying fossils wants a good deal, the biggest, the most complete or a good price. Would you pay thousands of dollars for a partial Audoliceras? I bet you wouldn't. And it probably wouldn't pay the costs of the trip, excavation and preparation, if they were very cheap. I just mean, probably no one would go and collect them, if they weren't commercialy interesting! However, when you say "art business" you need to distinguish between a good restoration and a fakery (like schizochroal eyes on lichids), but a restoration is not necessary a bad thing, if it's done right and if disclosed - you just need to know what you are paying for. I guess in this case you didn't.

 

 

Imho Russians are great preparators and they can do a preparation, a restoration or even a composition like this, because their fossils are fantastic preserved, so in a way they can bring fossils back to life. But they are no exception...

 

Plenty of other fossils are prepped for "decoration" or "display", just think about restored dinosaur skeletons in museums, Chinese sabertooth cat skulls or other restored verts, inlayed Green River Formation fish plates or big shiny Canadian ammolite ammonites (a lot of artistic tricks involved there too to pop up the colors and people wouldn't pay thousands of dollars, if those were available unprepped, but that's another story) or common Madagascar cut and polished ammonites (shiny, cheap and common, when polished definitely not a natural condition as they are found in, but people love them)... Etc! Almost all fossils in the biznis are prepped for display. Even the most recent hit - a giant sea monster - pliosaur skull featured in the new Attenborough BBC documentary is restored! In my opinion Steve and Chris did a fantastic job to restore the teeth and bring the skull back to life! Makes it an even better display piece for the Etches Collection museum. Just saying, don't hate the restoration, instead learn to follow the caveat emptor rule, when buying any fossil. Do the research.

 

 

 

I have to disagree with most of the fossil business being art (as in restoration/compositing), because there are plenty of all-natural fossils being bought and sold. Regarding your question, I would absolutely rather buy a partial natural Audoliceras or, if a composite, no more than the value of the pieces used in the compositing (though I doubt your assumption that a fragment would be thousands of dollars when a composite made from such fragments is around that price range). Outside of that I'd rather not spend the money at all, and I generally wouldn't even consider a heavily composited or restored piece for purchase in the first place.

 

However, this is a highly personal preference and I realize I am on the more extreme end of a purist approach. So it's not necessarily a dunk on Russian preparators' skill, which is surely impressive from a technical standpoint. I just wouldn't consider the composited/restored parts as "fossil". If the business was selling natural pieces as-is I would consider buying them over a pretty-looking composite, though obviously the price would be lower (and therein lies the incentive for said compositing/restoration).

 

I understand many fossils are prepped for decoration/display purposes and that's fine, albeit a bit painful to see if the procedure is irreversible such as polishing.

 

39 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said:

I guess I am the exception, but I am OK with a restoration as long as it is anatomically correct, the restoration can be recognized but not too obvious, and the price is reasonable.  I will never be able to afford a naturally perfect Didymoceras, for example, but a good well done composite would find a home in my cabinet.

 

Don

 

I can see the argument for a restored piece for something that you may never find or afford such as a complete Didymoceras. Again personally I would rather just have the natural fragments and pay only for their value, but again this is personal preference. I see many vertebrate collectors and even some invertebrate collectors who are okay with a reasonable amount of well-done restoration.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 11 by Mochaccino

[FossilDAWG]

Well I should also say that my preference is to find fossils myself.  The number of purchased specimens in my collection is still likely less than 10% of the total.  So I know how small my collection would be if it consisted entirely of self-collected perfect specimens.

 

Don

[RuMert]

Self-collecting is a unique experience which makes up the bulk of the iceberg the specimen is the top of. Looking at the self-collected specimen you recall the region, the weather, the atmosphere, interesting moments of the trip, you know if it's rare or not, the quality of its preservation, the rest of the fauna, Looking at the bought specimen you see, well, a specimen😀

[aeon.rocks]

Quote

I have to disagree with most of the fossil business being art (as in restoration/compositing), because there are plenty of all-natural fossils being bought and sold. Regarding your question, I would absolutely rather buy a partial natural Audoliceras or, if a composite, no more than the value of the pieces used in the compositing (though I doubt your assumption that a fragment would be thousands of dollars when a composite made from such fragments is around that price range). Outside of that I'd rather not spend the money at all, and I generally wouldn't even consider a heavily composited or restored piece for purchase in the first place.

 

However, this is a highly personal preference and I realize I am on the more extreme end of a purist approach. So it's not necessarily a dunk on Russian preparators' skill, which is surely impressive from a technical standpoint. I just wouldn't consider the composited/restored parts as "fossil". If the business was selling natural pieces as-is I would consider buying them over a pretty-looking composite, though obviously the price would be lower (and therein lies the incentive for said compositing/restoration).

 

I understand many fossils are prepped for decoration/display purposes and that's fine, albeit a bit painful to see if the procedure is irreversible such as polishing.

 

 

My point was a comment on this "Russian fossils are an art business, not a fossil business." - what I meant is that not only Russians are in "art business" (if you want to call it that way), but also the French, the USA, the Canadian, the UK, the Spanish etc.! That's what I mean with most of the fossil business is art. Especially when you get to the aesthetically prepared specimens of higher value, sold to the rich. Of course there are plenty of all-natural fossils being bought and sold too, but it really depends on the species. We should say, there are plenty of all natural common fossils! Period.

 

I have to disagree on the "purist approach" however, I consider the restored fossils as fossils too - and you should too - especially if the restoration is accurate and minimalistic - still the same fossil as unrestored underneath, just with makeup. 😉 And makeup can be removed most of the times, so unless we are talking about scientifically important specimens, I don't mind minor restoration on fossils; in fact I find it normal (if minimal). In many cases "such makeup" makes the difference and can bring a fossil "back to life". I have to note here, that altho I don't mind restoration, I am not a fan of composition. That's another thing, in my book! Just trying to say that I see no point in fear of restoration of fossils - after all you are not collecting fossils to study, but to place them on your shelf "and collect dust". 

 

What I think is a "problem", is lack of declaration, from some sellers. We both know why is that, so it's probably not a good idea to be a purist collectors, who wants a good deal, although have no idea what they are buying - and so they get ripped off and buy fakes! So my advice to you and new collectors is simply to not be afraid of restoration, forget the "purist approach" and instead, learn more about the fossils you are buying, before you buy. Do your research! After a while even your view on the fossil market might change, mine did. I don't buy fossils anymore. Unless unprepped. Not because of fear of restoration, but because I either can't afford what I like and because I prefer quality (preservation & preparation) over what we are feed in the market, most of the time. The fossil market nowadays is full of common fossils, but imho not many worth really paying a lot of money for! I would prefer to see many common fossils that end up for sale donated to kids for free... And you can't even do systematic collecting, unless you collect yourself.

Edited January 11 by aeon.rocks

[aeon.rocks]

Quote

Self-collecting is a unique experience which makes up the bulk of the iceberg the specimen is the top of. Looking at the self-collected specimen you recall the region, the weather, the atmosphere, interesting moments of the trip, you know if it's rare or not, the quality of its preservation, the rest of the fauna, Looking at the bought specimen you see, well, a specimen

 

I agree! Well, the only problem i see is, many locations are illegal to collect nowadays. And I try to stay out of trouble, so I just prep.

[rfarrar]

There is no problem with normal restoration of fossils for display or specimen conservation. Even extensive restoration can be acceptable. Problems arise with restoration involving natural composite parts (parts from other fossil specimens). The heteromorph ammonites are often composited, and occasionally even anatomically correctly composited. Art accepts it and science strongly frowns on it. The Audoliceras are commonly restored by the addition of an original juvenile whorl. Some enterprising restorers have even been known to slice in half the whorls to be used for composite, thus having parts for 2 individual restorations from one piece.

Even the common cut and polished Madagascar ammonites are sometimes afflicted with composite restorations. Always examine specimens to locate restored areas, and try to ascertain whether they correspond to natural breaks. On cut and polished ammonites look for putty between inner and outer coils. Artistic restorers can be very creative.

The better the specimen looks, the more carefully you should inspect it.

[Mochaccino]

1 hour ago, aeon.rocks said:

 

My point was a comment on this "Russian fossils are an art business, not a fossil business." - what I meant is that not only Russians are in "art business" (if you want to call it that way), but also the French, the USA, the Canadian, the UK, the Spanish etc.! That's what I mean with most of the fossil business is art. Especially when you get to the aesthetically prepared specimens of higher value, sold to the rich. Of course there are plenty of all-natural fossils being bought and sold too, but it really depends on the species. We should say, there are plenty of all natural common fossils! Period.

 

I have to disagree on the "purist approach" however, I consider the restored fossils as fossils too - and you should too - especially if the restoration is accurate and minimalistic - still the same fossil as unrestored underneath, just with makeup. 😉 And makeup can be removed most of the times, so unless we are talking about scientifically important specimens, I don't mind minor restoration on fossils; in fact I find it normal (if minimal). In many cases "such makeup" makes the difference and can bring a fossil "back to life". I have to note here, that altho I don't mind restoration, I am not a fan of composition. That's another thing, in my book! Just trying to say that I see no point in fear of restoration of fossils - after all you are not collecting fossils to study, but to place them on your shelf "and collect dust". 

 

What I think is a "problem", is lack of declaration, from some sellers. We both know why is that, so it's probably not a good idea to be a purist collectors, who wants a good deal, although have no idea what they are buying - and so they get ripped off and buy fakes! So my advice to you and new collectors is simply to not be afraid of restoration, forget the "purist approach" and instead, learn more about the fossils you are buying, before you buy. Do your research! After a while even your view on the fossil market might change, mine did. I don't buy fossils anymore. Unless unprepped. Not because of fear of restoration, but because I either can't afford what I like and because I prefer quality (preservation & preparation) over the usual stuff quality (preparation & preservation), that we are feed in the market, most of the time. You can't even do systematic collecting anymore, unless you collect yourself. The fossil market nowadays is full of common fossils, but imho not many worth really paying for! I would prefer to see them donated to kids for free...

 

Ah I see what you took from that comment. Russians are of course not the only ones engaging in fossil "art". I was just referring to them in the context of Russian fossils obviously, since they are often too good at resto/compositing and too often this is not disclosed. I still disagree with most fossil business being art. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that "art" is widespread in the fossil business regardless of country. 

Restored fossils are indeed fossils to the extent that they have fossil material in them, but what I meant was that I don't consider the restored portions to be fossil material at all, and those parts are thus worthless to me. When I collect a fossil I am looking for a good "example". So when I judge the quality of a fossil, I assess whether it shows the key features as described in literature. I don't think anyone would point to a restored portion or "makeup" and say it's a good example of the fossil's feature, since it is entirely man-made. I understand that others might like it for the aesthetic enhancement. Different perspectives and preferences. I also don't think compositing is all that different from resto, since in both you are fabricating details that aren't present in the natural state. So I can't say I'll change being a purist anytime soon, but we can agree to disagree.

 

Obviously I agree on lack of disclosure being a big problem. As long as it's disclosed, people can choose to proceed or stay away.

[Mochaccino]

2 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

Well I should also say that my preference is to find fossils myself.  The number of purchased specimens in my collection is still likely less than 10% of the total.  So I know how small my collection would be if it consisted entirely of self-collected perfect specimens.

 

Don

 

2 hours ago, RuMert said:

Self-collecting is a unique experience which makes up the bulk of the iceberg the specimen is the top of. Looking at the self-collected specimen you recall the region, the weather, the atmosphere, interesting moments of the trip, you know if it's rare or not, the quality of its preservation, the rest of the fauna, Looking at the bought specimen you see, well, a specimen😀

Ah if only I was fortunate enough to be in an area where I could collect the fossils of my interest.

 

1 hour ago, rfarrar said:

There is no problem with normal restoration of fossils for display or specimen conservation. Even extensive restoration can be acceptable. Problems arise with restoration involving natural composite parts (parts from other fossil specimens). The heteromorph ammonites are often composited, and occasionally even anatomically correctly composited. Art accepts it and science strongly frowns on it. The Audoliceras are commonly restored by the addition of an original juvenile whorl. Some enterprising restorers have even been known to slice in half the whorls to be used for composite, thus having parts for 2 individual restorations from one piece.

Even the common cut and polished Madagascar ammonites are sometimes afflicted with composite restorations. Always examine specimens to locate restored areas, and try to ascertain whether they correspond to natural breaks. On cut and polished ammonites look for putty between inner and outer coils. Artistic restorers can be very creative.

The better the specimen looks, the more carefully you should inspect it.

Again, I don't think compositing is all that different from restoration. Whether you restore an inner whorl or composite a different specimen's inner whorl into it, you are fabricating details. I guess in the latter case at least the composited part on its own is a valid fossil.

 

Edited January 11 by Mochaccino

[rfarrar]

A composited specimen is more likely  to create confusion for future viewers or owners, than a specimen which is simply restored. In my eyes restoration, whether cast or freehand is fine because it can always be determined what is original and what is not. With a composited specimen it is not obvious what is the original specimen (that is the idea behind creating a composite) and what was added. That drastically diminishes any scientific value that the specimen may have originally had.