A few questions about replicas

[Gabbo]

Hey there,

 

before I found this forum, I had hopes and dreams of collectiong an affordable Droaeosauridae collection.

Teeth are Teeth so they can't be very complicated and I found so many deales who were selling "Raptor" Teeth.

After a few discussions with you guys I know now, that you basically need a doctorate to spot the genuine teeth and that 95% of the dealers are selling snarge.

 

Since then, @Troodon is known to me as "Destroyer of Dreams"  . 

 

So, before I fling myself in the Art of "don't buy fake teeth", I wanted to start with a few replicas.

This opened the door to a lot of new horrors ...  and questions.

 

So if it's ok with you, I'd like to ask a few of those based on two replicas I already bought by highlighting questionable terminology.

I roughly understand how a fossil replica is made (mold and cast method), but not really the context of the description. It seems to contradict itself.

 

So, first of all, I talked with the "DreamDestroyer" about this replica and he stated that the skull doesn't look right.

I bought it nevertheless, because I liked it as Art.

 

What exactly is this? A life sized "actual" skull with reconstructed elements?

 

 On the claw replica:  So a X-Generation cast? The reconstructed part confuses me.

 

Thanks again and best regards

Sebastian

 

[Fossildude19]

4 hours ago, Gabbo said:

So if it's ok with you, I'd like to ask a few of those based on two replicas I already bought by highlighting questionable terminology.

 

Unfortunately, it is not OK to post actual advertisement verbiage. We can talk about the replicas themselves, but not the wording of the ads. 

 

From your pictures, the skull appears to be a cast from a mold that was constructed to resemble an actual fossil, but obviously, they got some things wrong, and took artistic license with adding the "feathers".

 

The claw was probably made as a cast from a mold of an actual claw fossil.  

[LordTrilobite]

That skull is definitely a sculpture. It's a piece of art. It's nicely made and the anatomy looks quite good but the whole thing does look sculpted. I don't believe it's based directly on any real fossil.

So far no Velociraptor has been found with feathers either. Only quill-knobs have been found on the ulna.

[Troodon]

Orginal claws like Utahraptor are only found in museums and not commercially available.  Since replicas are typically an original reconstruction based on an actual specimen a museum had to allow a mold to be made for replication or they may have made their own replicas to sell in their museum store.  So they would have to provide you that sort of information if it was ever done.  Replica sellers sometimes use these museum supplied replicas to make molds and have an endless supply.

[Gabbo]

3 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

Unfortunately, it is not OK to post actual advertisement verbiage. We can talk about the replicas themselves, but not the wording of the ads. 

 

Apologies. I was under the impression that the concealing of the dealer was sufficent enough. Won't happen again.

The rephrased questions from the illegal "advertisement verbiage":

 

1. I find it extremely fascinating, that you are able to see instant flaws on the pictures. As you see, I can not.

Any helpful guides for this kind of stuff? I really don't want to bother you for every replica I want to buy.

 

2. Is there a difference between "pressure cast" and "mold and cast"?

 

49 minutes ago, LordTrilobite said:

That skull is definitely a sculpture. It's a piece of art. It's nicely made and the anatomy looks quite good but the whole thing does look sculpted. I don't believe it's based directly on any real fossil.

So far no Velociraptor has been found with feathers either. Only quill-knobs have been found on the ulna.

 

Interesting information. Thank you.

 

9 minutes ago, Troodon said:

Orginal claws like Utahraptor are only found in museums and not commercially available.  Since replicas are typically an original reconstruction based on an actual specimen a museum had to allow a mold to be made for replication or they may have made their own replicas to sell in their museum store.  So they would have to provide you that sort of information if it was ever done.  Replica sellers sometimes use these museum supplied replicas to make molds and have an endless supply.

 

So, to be clear at the terminology. A first-generation cast would be directly from the original bone, right? What is this then called? Second-generation, because it's a cast from a cast?

 

 

 

[Randyw]

As to the skull it’s fairly obvious. It’s flat first of all. Compare it to a real skull. This one is in the AMNH.

[Troodon]

24 minutes ago, Gabbo said:

So, to be clear at the terminology. A first-generation cast would be directly from the original bone, right? What is this then called? Second-generation, because it's a cast from a cast?

I dont know the proper terminology but it might be from multiple casts of casts.  Remember what I said dont assume its a cast from the original bone only a museum can tell you if it was ever allowed to have a mold made or they did the initial cast to be sold in their store.

[Gabbo]

 

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

I dont know the proper terminology but it might be from multiple casts of casts.  Remember what I said dont assume its a cast from the original bone only a museum can tell you if it was ever allowed to have a mold made or they did the initial cast to be sold in their store.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I am fully aware, that this isn't a direct cast from the bone. I was just interested in the proper terminology.

But thank you for the interesting bits on the Utharaptor. I wasn't aware, that the claws aren't commercialy available. 

 

1 hour ago, Randyw said:

As to the skull it’s fairly obvious. It’s flat first of all. Compare it to a real skull. This one is in the AMNH.

Man this is beautiful. I did a quick side-by-side comparison. The jaw looks very different.

Sorry, but what do you mean with "flat"? This replica does have some structure.

 

[Dracorex_hogwartsia]

1 hour ago, Gabbo said:

Apologies. I was under the impression that the concealing of the dealer was sufficent enough. Won't happen again.

The rephrased questions from the illegal "advertisement verbiage":

 

1. I find it extremely fascinating, that you are able to see instant flaws on the pictures. As you see, I can not.

Any helpful guides for this kind of stuff? I really don't want to bother you for every replica I want to buy.

 

2. Is there a difference between "pressure cast" and "mold and cast"?

 

 

Interesting information. Thank you.

 

 

So, to be clear at the terminology. A first-generation cast would be directly from the original bone, right? What is this then called? Second-generation, because it's a cast from a cast?

 

 

 

Yes, a first generation cast would be taken directly from the original fossil. A 2nd generation cast is a cast of a cast. It can also get worse. You have some people making a cast of a cast of a cast. You can see how this could get out of control and you end up with a product that has very little detail compared to the original. Always try and buy a 1st generation cast if possible. These type casts can actually be hard to aquire and can be very expensive but they are as close to the original fossil as possible.

[Troodon]

Just a point on Velociraptor replica skulls.  The same point I made on Utahraptor can be made for these type of skulls that are only found in museums and not commercially found.

[JoeS]

Hi, about that Utahraptor claw.
As indicated this is a reconstruction based on an actual fossil, so my guess is that the original claw was found in a rather bad shape and the artist got rid of those imperfections - it should still represent the claw in size and overall shape.
I know there is a cast from an actual ungual pedal II available online, which matches the original description.



Here the link to the paper:
https://www.academia.edu/225747/A_large_dromaeosaurid_Theropoda_from_the_Lower_Cretaceous_of_Eastern_Utah

 

[Randyw]

36 minutes ago, Gabbo said:

This replica does have some structure.

A little but nowhere near enough for the amount of skull represented. Here is an actual skull and neck in matrix. Compare it to what your picture shows and the dozens of differences become apparent.

[Troodon]

44 minutes ago, JoeS said:

Hi, about that Utahraptor claw.
As indicated this is a reconstruction based on an actual fossil, so my guess is that the original claw was found in a rather bad shape and the artist got rid of those imperfections - it should still represent the claw in size and overall shape.
I know there is a cast from an actual ungual pedal II available online, which matches the original description.


 

What you are describing is the foot claw.  Replica in question is the hand claw which is a bit different than replica and missing a few sections, cross-hatch

 

 

 

[JoeS]

@Troodon  yes, was just pointing out there is a pretty detailed foot claw out there

 

[Troodon]

1 hour ago, JoeS said:

@Troodon  yes, was just pointing out there is a pretty detailed foot claw out there

 

Understood detailed yes but not an exact replica of the real claw just what I call a facsimile 

[RuMert]

I liked the OP's rich language and problem presentation. Should try writing books:)

[tooth_claw]

11 hours ago, Gabbo said:

Is there a difference between "pressure cast" and "mold and cast"?

It sounds like basically the same process with one slight difference-I would say that a pressure cast is when the resin is cured under pressure in order to make any air bubbles smaller. Regular casting is usually done without any special equipment.

(I mould and cast fossils for scientific or outreach purposes and have used both methods)

 

Also, it warms my heart to see replicas referred to as Art. Many folk fail to realise the philosophical difference between Replica and Fake fossils. I feel that fake is trying to fool people, replica is a faithful copy of the original specimen (there is, I admit, a lot of grey area in this definition  ). 

[Gabbo]

15 hours ago, Dracorex_hogwartsia said:

Yes, a first generation cast would be taken directly from the original fossil. A 2nd generation cast is a cast of a cast. It can also get worse. You have some people making a cast of a cast of a cast. You can see how this could get out of control and you end up with a product that has very little detail compared to the original. Always try and buy a 1st generation cast if possible. These type casts can actually be hard to aquire and can be very expensive but they are as close to the original fossil as possible.

Yeah thats what I thought. By the way, I haven't found one dealer who disclosed the number of casts in their description.

 

15 hours ago, Troodon said:

Just a point on Velociraptor replica skulls.  The same point I made on Utahraptor can be made for these type of skulls that are only found in museums and not commercially found.

Is this due to the fact, that they haven't found many preserved skulls? Does this apply to most of the Dromaeosauridae?

Honestly, I hadn't even hoped to own a genuine Dromaeosaurid skull.

14 hours ago, Randyw said:

A little but nowhere near enough for the amount of skull represented. Here is an actual skull and neck in matrix. Compare it to what your picture shows and the dozens of differences become apparent.

It's shocking to me, how many differences there are. I mean, I really like this replica as art but I was hoping, that it would resemble an genuine skull at least partially. Disappointing.

Anyway, thank you for your effort.

 

15 hours ago, JoeS said:

Hi, about that Utahraptor claw.
As indicated this is a reconstruction based on an actual fossil, so my guess is that the original claw was found in a rather bad shape and the artist got rid of those imperfections - it should still represent the claw in size and overall shape.
I know there is a cast from an actual ungual pedal II available online, which matches the original description.

That explains the term "reconstruction" in the description of the claw. Good to know, thank you. I'll take a look at the paper.

 

8 hours ago, RuMert said:

I liked the OP's rich language and problem presentation. Should try writing books:)

Thank you kind stranger =). I try my very best to annoy just a few people with my questions ;).

 

4 hours ago, tooth_claw said:

It sounds like basically the same process with one slight difference-I would say that a pressure cast is when the resin is cured under pressure in order to make any air bubbles smaller. Regular casting is usually done without any special equipment.

(I mould and cast fossils for scientific or outreach purposes and have used both methods)

 

Also, it warms my heart to see replicas referred to as Art. Many folk fail to realise the philosophical difference between Replica and Fake fossils. I feel that fake is trying to fool people, replica is a faithful copy of the original specimen (there is, I admit, a lot of grey area in this definition  ). 

That's really interesting to hear. So does that mean, that the pressure cast is superior, because the output is more detailed? 

Do you have any recommendations for literature regarding castings?

 

Yeah I guess it all depends how you approach this subject. Like I said, I really like the replica as a piece of art, but I am still disappointed and a little bit frustrated that there are so few similarities to the original. I agree with your definition of fakes.

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by Gabbo

[Troodon]

2 hours ago, Gabbo said:

Is this due to the fact, that they haven't found many preserved skulls? Does this apply to most of the Dromaeosauridae?

Honestly, I hadn't even hoped to own a genuine Dromaeosaurid skull.

Skulls from Dromaeosaurid's are exceedingly rare and very few have been found so replicas can be art like your Velo skull.   Real replicas of very rare or one off specimens can be problematic.  I see lots of velociraptor replica skulls and claws for sale but most are well oversized since it was a dog sized dinosaur

[Gabbo]

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

Skulls from Dromaeosaurid's are exceedingly rare and very few have been found so replicas can be art like your Velo skull.   Real replicas of very rare or one off specimens can be problematic.  I see lots of velociraptor replica skulls and claws for sale but most are well oversized since it was a dog sized dinosaur

I see. If it's ok with you, I'd like to spin out an idea:

 

So lets say, I found a replica of a Deinonychus skull, but this time I want to make sure, that it gets as close as possible to the original. Meaning I need concrete criterias.

 

The Paper "Osteology of Deinonychus Antirrhopus" provides a few indicators.

1. According to it, the estimated skull and jaw dimensions (based on YPM 5210 and 5232) for the greatest length are 32cm. The attached replica is 37cm (14.5 inches) long. So there is a small difference of 5 cm. Considering that the members of this species aren't all the same height and weight, this should be ok, right?!

2. Page 22 of the paper shows a picture of a restorated skull. A direct comparison shows a few differences, but they could exist because the replica isn't from an "Antirrhopus".

 

So, I got a 5cm difference in legth and a few differences in the shape.

I would say, it looks good enough.

What about you? 

 

P.S. Unfortunately, the file of the paper is 8mb. I just uploaded the part relevant to the skull.

ypmB30_1969-21-43.pdf

Edited April 28, 2020 by Gabbo

[Troodon]

All depends what you are looking for.   If you want an exact replica of the real fossil it may be difficult.   That's an artist rendition of the skull. 

[Gabbo]

16 minutes ago, Troodon said:

All depends what you are looking for.   If you want an exact replica of the real fossil it may be difficult.   That's an artist rendition of the skull. 

Yea a first-generation cast would be awesome but I guess it would financially ruin me. I mean they have discovered fairly complete Deinonychus fossils, haven't they?

I guess I just have to abandon the idea of the perfect replica. Anyway, thanks again for your Input.

[Troodon]

Here is some of what has been reported and includes the partial skulls in the papers you mentioned.  The most complete specimens dont appear to have a skull.   Fairly complete skeletons or skulls on theropods are incredibly rare.  For example in the Kem Kem we only have one partial skull from a Theropod that of Carcharodontosaurus but lots of teeth from other predators.

 

[Dracorex_hogwartsia]

3 hours ago, Gabbo said:

Yea a first-generation cast would be awesome but I guess it would financially ruin me. I mean they have discovered fairly complete Deinonychus fossils, haven't they?

I guess I just have to abandon the idea of the perfect replica. Anyway, thanks again for your Input.

What you're looking for is what a lot of us are looking for, exact casts of molds taken directly from the original fossil that look 100% like the real fossil in every way. Unfortunately, these types of "replicas" are usually not available to the general public because they are being made by museum's in limited quantities for other museums and researchers. These casts are usually referred to as research grade casts. Casts that the public are able to aquire are usually much inferior. Usually only non academics with special connections to research institutions or private collections are able to aquire the really nice casts.