Sinohydrosaurus Lingyuanensis

[StevenJD]

Pick these two up today at the fossil show in Denver.  What do you guys think?  Dealer claimed no paint or enhancement.  

 

 

First one...

[StevenJD]

[StevenJD]

Here's the second one picked up today at the fossil show in Denver.  What do you guys think?  Dealer claimed no paint or enhancement.  

[StevenJD]

[DPS Ammonite]

Hello Steven. The up-close details will show if it is real and whether or not it has been painted. On the first one, can you take a couple of close-up shots of the upper right hand and the lower right ribcage?  We are looking to see if the darker areas always coincide with the areas of bone or impressions of bone. Some preparers paint the matrix to suggest bone. When there is no difference in texture (positive or negative relief) between the dark and adjacent light areas painting is suspected. The details will also tell if real bone has been painted darker. No one can always paint bone perfectly and "stay within the lines."

[JohnJ]

Your topics have been merged, Steven.

[StevenJD]

thanks John.

hope these pictures help, DPS.

[doushantuo]

In 2010,import permission for Chinese fossils was refused by the Canadian Government,said import being in conflict with the Unesco Cultural Heritage Convention Rules

Sinohydrosaurus is( I think) a junior objective synonym of Hyphalosaurus.Part and counterpart were given different names.

 

keqingaoksepkchoristodereptilagerstHYPHALOsauruJAN07.x.pdf

[Fossildude19]

Steven,

I hope you didn't pay too much for these.

 

They look fake to me.

 

 

 

[doushantuo]

I'm with Tim.

There's something about the cranium I don't like,but can't put my finger on it

Well,that was one unintentional bad pun

No ophistotonic posture,but I am unsure if that is very meaningful

[DPS Ammonite]

I too see some problems with the fossil in the last three photos.

 

The foot bones look like they were incised into the rock as outlines, painted and then partly incised more. See area 1. A line made by a sharp tool separates the two parts. See area 2. This bone was carved by a sharp tool, painted, then carved again. See area 3.

 

Take this to the next Dallas Paleontological Society meeting so experts there can look at it. It is much easier to tell what is going on when you look at fossils in person.

TFF fossil.pdf

[Fossildude19]

The change in matrix texture in certain areas also puts me off on these. 

Smooth to rough can happen naturally, but I don't see that very often.

 

Given that Chinese vertebrates are banned from being sold overseas, I would hesitate before making any purchases of such fossils. 

Definitely have it looked at by the DPS. 

Regards,

[LordTrilobite]

I disagree. This looks very real. These specimens have details I would not expect from a fake. There also seems to be a change in structure in the bones compared to the matrix.

[StevenJD]

more pictures of the 1st one.

[StevenJD]

more pictures of the 2nd one.

[LordTrilobite]

Yeah okay the legs of the last one look painted on. But those skulls look real to me.

[IonRocks]

To me many parts of the skulls seem to be lacking dimension, even where "bone" sticks up it isn't colored all the way through. 

Id say not real :/

[doushantuo]

I wonder if people ever think of e.g. examining the matrix palynologically.

Or in general,micropaleontologically.

Just thinking aloud.

Might help with establishing provenance

[StevenJD]

thanks everyone for your help on these pieces.  I was able to return them for a refund.  

[LordTrilobite]

It's your choice of course. But I think these are real fossils with only minor restoration.

On 18/09/2016 at 3:58 AM, StevenJDennis said:

thanks John.

hope these pictures help, DPS.

 

This foot is definitely real. An indentation where some of the bone is gone can be seen.

 

On 18/09/2016 at 2:57 AM, StevenJDennis said:

 

 

On both this neck and tail real and fake bones can be seen. In the middle of the curve on the left filled in break in the matrix can be seen where the slab was repaired. On this repair the bones are painted on. The rest of the tail is real. Same situation with the neck. In the middle there is a fill in where the slab was broken at one point. A definite lack of detail can be seen on that repaired area where one or two vertebrae are painted in. The skull and the rest of the neck are real.

 

So all in all. I think these are real and actually really nice fossils with only partial restoration.

 

[Fossildude19]

I believe that Steven was well within his rights to return it, as the seller had specifically stated no paint or enhancement, when obviously, this was not the case. 

Despite parts of the fossils possibly being real, ( I don't know how anyone would explain different sized eye orbits. Not sure crushing could do that, while the orbits kept their circular shape??.) they were advertised as real, with no enhancement or paint. 

If the seller mentioned/advertised the paint and restoration, and adjusted the price accordingly, it might be worth buying, if the full disclosure did not turn you off. 

Honesty is the problem here, as well as the enhancement or restoration.

Just my two cents.

 

[LordTrilobite]

Ah yes I forgot about that part. With the seller saying they are unrestored getting a refund might indeed be the best course.

[-Andy-]

They are pretty decent!

 

I've seen quite a number of fakes pop up on eBay every now and then and these two are definitely of a higher quality.

[fossiling]

as almost everyone said,I believe these are actual fossils,with missing parts painted /carved onto make it sell for better.