Comparing two Phareodus, which one is the better fossil?

[jbrackjr]

Here are two photos of a Phareodus that are roughly 14" in length.  Both on sale at the same website.  One is almost twice as much as the other.  I am trying to learn what to look for when evaluating a fish fossil from photographs.  Comparing these two photos, can you point out what the big difference is between them?  Thanks.

 

 

[FossilDAWG]

Offhand I would say that the top one is well articulated (bones almost all in the right place), and the lower one is a bit disarticulated, suggesting it had started to decay a bit before it was buried/fossilized.  You can see this in the skull and the ribs. 

 

Don

[Fossildude19]

Completeness and quality of preservation are the items most concerned with for fish evaluation.

The top is better preserved, and more complete, as Don stated.

 

[Tidgy's Dad]

I just think the top one looks much prettier. 

[Top Trilo]

I agree with everything above but surprisingly its the bottom one that's twice the price. 

[jbrackjr]

First, thanks to all that replied so quickly.  Top Trilo, you are correct.  I am not a fossil hunter, just like to display them in my home.  Looking at various photos on fossil sites as well as online, I see a lot of price differences that don't make sense to me.  I agree with everyone (so far) that the top one looks better.  Not interested in those fossils, just trying to learn.

 

 

[snolly50]

1 hour ago, Top Trilo said:

surprisingly its the bottom one that's twice the price. 

Perhaps the seller knows something that we don't. 

[Fossildude19]

I've noticed that things online can be mis-identified, and are sometimes priced oddly.

I think that many who deal in fossils do not have a good handle on how to price them.

The one below could be priced more because it looks like it is from the 18 inch layer, whereas the other's matrix is more reminiscent of the Split fish layer. 

Harder prep = more time prepping = more money charged. 

[michele 1937]

I prefer the latter

[Paleorunner]

The only logic I see is that the seller believes that because of the color of the second fish, it can be sold at a higher price.
(There are collector who will surely see the second fish more attractive).

Edited September 4, 2021 by Paleorunner

[Troodon]

So many factors can enter the pricing game and in the end only the seller knows why.  It would be interesting to try to ask him why the difference and see what he says.  Some would be very forthright.  I like the prep reason Tim mentioned since I know with Dinosaur material prepped can be a huge factor in pricing.

[hadrosauridae]

While I think the top fish is the better specimen, I could see the seller possible wanting more from the bottom fish if the prep takes longer.  The top fish has the black, 18"/bottom layer look which is a lot easier prep because the bone material is much harder.  The split fish layer is extremely soft and fragile.  Trying to prep a split fish like an 18" would leave you with nothing.  My first GR fish prep came from member Ptychodus, all the others are specimens I collected from the split layers.  The fish from Ptychodus (bottom cap layer IIRC) was prepped with a scribe and blaster.  The splits require hour after hour with a pinvise and lots of consolidate.

 

Now, I dont think that means the split layer fish should be more pricy.  I look at it as the fossil is the fossil.