Russian Audoliceras resto?

[Mochaccino]

2 minutes ago, rfarrar said:

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.

Hmm, I have not thought about it this way but I see your point. Going by this logic though, "well-done" restoration is more detrimental to a fossil than "obvious" restoration. In either case, I would put no additional value into the added parts as fossil material, aside from aesthetics.

[rfarrar]

Good restoration can almost always be detected with simple testing - UV, acetone swab, etc. A composite cannot always be detected. One cannot determine whether a composite part was original to the specimen or came from a different site. 

[aeon.rocks]

I agree with rfarrar, that's why composition and restoration shouldn't be tought as the same. A restoration can always be detected and removed, if desired.

 

Quote

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.

 

I disagree with this puristic view however! Although restoration is indeed done just for aesthetic reasons - because most fossils in your collections serve display reasons, not for study - it always adds to the aesthetic value (and monetary - not as much as a completely natural fossil would cost, but time, skills and work cost money). If you chose to have a fossil restored, you need to pay someone to do it. And a good restoration will always try to mimic the natural details, to be morphologically accurate and in a way will bring the fossils back to life for the viewer. Although it's man-made, it should try to be as accurate as possible and with the new techniques, such as casting, 3D scanning and 3D printing, that's possible to achieve almost 100%. Don't mistake a good restoration for [bad] restoration used in this Audoloiceras or similar specimens - a good restoration can go almost unnoticed, if not disclosed and you are just looking at the specimen on photos. That's why it's important to do research on how certain fossils are found and prepped and to be familiar with how to test for restoration.

 

Restoration is just another preparation technique; widely used even in museums too. It adds to the aesthetic value and in some cases also serves as stability to the bones or other "structures"! With a good restoration you are NOT fabricating details that aren't present in the natural state, just the contrary - you want to mimic the natural state as it would be, if fossil was better preserved. Fabrication would be making structures that wouldn't be present in a natural state (such as schizochroal eyes on russian lichids). But yeah, different perspectives...

 

Here's an example that I absolutely love what they have done with it - a fantastic find and project, the recent pliosaur found in UK by Philip Jacobs and excavated (and prepped) by Steve and Chris and the team. If you have the chance check out the BBC documentary about this find (Attenborough and the giant sea monster)... The restorations are minimal, but they add to the aesthetic value and are done accurately:

 

Snout as found by Philips, as you can see the teeth crumbeled when the fossil hit and rolled around on the beach - this is very puristic:

 

Same piece again, good pic to see the size of this thing; cleaned (and it was inspected, studied, 3D scanned and casted for further scientific study):

 

 

With the rest of the skull - you can here clearlly see the restorations, which not only serve as aesthetic improvement, but also give stability to the fractured bones: 

 

 

And here the finished specimen, with restorations coloured and teeth restored (it's important to note here that teeth were accurately restored, probably 3D printed and adjusted for size, but based on a natural tooth found with the specimen). The project of this preparation took about a year and a lot of time and skills went into final restorations, although minimal, to bring the fossil "back to life" - to say the added aesthetic value by restoration is worthless or just art, would be crazy. It's amazing, scientifically accurate and adds to the aesthetic value! You can imagine the "kids going crazy" when looking at these teeth in museum:

 

 

Another view, with a Swamblaster and Comco in the background

 

 

 

 

[Mochaccino]

2 hours ago, aeon.rocks said:

I agree with rfarrar, that's why composition and restoration shouldn't be tought as the same. A restoration can always be detected and removed, if desired.

 

 

I disagree with this puristic view however! Although restoration is indeed done just for aesthetic reasons - because most fossils in your collections serve display reasons, not for study - it always adds to the aesthetic value (and monetary - not as much as a completely natural fossil would cost, but time, skills and work cost money). If you chose to have a fossil restored, you need to pay someone to do it. And a good restoration will always try to mimic the natural details, to be morphologically accurate and in a way will bring the fossils back to life for the viewer. Although it's man-made, it should try to be as accurate as possible and with the new techniques, such as casting, 3D scanning and 3D printing, that's possible to achieve almost 100%. Don't mistake a good restoration for [bad] restoration used in this Audoloiceras or similar specimens - a good restoration can go almost unnoticed, if not disclosed and you are just looking at the specimen on photos. That's why it's important to do research on how certain fossils are found and prepped and to be familiar with how to test for restoration.

 

Restoration is just another preparation technique; widely used even in museums too. It adds to the aesthetic value and in some cases also serves as stability to the bones or other "structures"! With a good restoration you are NOT fabricating details that aren't present in the natural state, just the contrary - you want to mimic the natural state as it would be, if fossil was better preserved. Fabrication would be making structures that wouldn't be present in a natural state (such as schizochroal eyes on russian lichids). But yeah, different perspectives...

 

Here's an example that I absolutely love what they have done with it - a fantastic find and project, the recent pliosaur found in UK by Philip Jacobs and excavated (and prepped) by Steve and Chris and the team. If you have the chance check out the BBC documentary about this find (Attenborough and the giant sea monster)... The restorations are minimal, but they add to the aesthetic value and are done accurately:

 

Snout as found by Philips, as you can see the teeth crumbeled when the fossil hit and rolled around on the beach - this is very puristic:

 

Same piece again, good pic to see the size of this thing; washed (and it was inspected, studied, 3D scanned and casted for further scientific study):

 

 

With the rest of the skull - you can here clearlly see the restorations, which not only serve as aesthetic improvement, but also give stability to the fractured bones: 

 

 

And here the finished specimen, with restorations coloured and teeth restored (it's important to note here that teeth were accurately restored, probably 3D printed and adjusted for size, but based on a natural tooth found with the specimen). The project of this preparation took about a year and a lot of time and skills went into final restorations, although minimal, to bring the fossil "back to life" - to say the added aesthetic value by restoration is worthless, would be crazy. It's amazing and adds to the aesthetic value! You can imagine the "kids going crazy" when looking at these teeth:

 

 

Another view, with a Swamblaster and Comco in the background

 

 

 

 

 

 

You make some fair points, and fear I may have become too aggressive on this tangent. I can see why one would consider tactful restoration as a method of recreating the natural state of a fossil. It is really most problematic when sellers in the fossil business so often have undisclosed restoration, since 100% natural pieces of course sell for much more. My perspective is heavily influenced by such a context and such seller practices, since the only way I can really collect fossils is to purchase. But I can see the merit of restoration in certain contexts if done in the right way. That being said, I will obviously still be very wary of restoration, especially undisclosed, for sold fossils, and in this regard we seem to agree.

 

In any case I appreciate your initial assessments on the Russian ammonite, and though a tangent, our discussion on restoration has given me some alternative perspectives.

 

[aeon.rocks]

Quote

 It is really most problematic when sellers in the fossil business so often have undisclosed restoration, since 100% natural pieces of course sell for much more.

 

That's true. Imho a good seller should be able to provide step by step photos of the preparation process or give an accurate description of the condition, especially if asking a fortune.

 

Of course you should be always careful what you buy, that's why again doing research (such as reading literature or googling how certain fossils are found or prepped, what the details or morphology should be like, even doing research on different prep techniques used) on fossils before purchase is important. That being said, you should obviously still be very wary of sold fossils, there's a lot of overpriced fossil which shouldn't cost much in the commercial world and some where a high price is justified. So try to think out of the box, not just if there is restoration, but also why some spines are prepped flying, if you collect trilobites, or why some fossils are expensive, are they really rare and spectacular as advertised, how "they are made" and why some art shouldn't be expensive, but is... 

 

Important to note aswell, since you need to know what you are paying for, is also to know the difference between a good preparation and a bad fast commercial prep. I try to encourage people to not throw "same types" of fossils all in the same basket - there's a difference between a good prepped example and a fast or bad prepped example, that reflects in the value too!

 

Maybe these articles can help a little (based for trilobites, but applies to other fossils aswell): 

 

https://www.trilobiti.com/post/the-pain-of-junking-massacred-trilobites-vs-fake

 

https://www.trilobiti.com/post/are-trilobites-rare-or-common-fossils

Edited January 12 by aeon.rocks