Cicija Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 (edited) I bought this Metacanthina online. As soon as it arrived, I noticed that it was set in this position (see picture) and glued. The pictures at the auction were a bit blurry, now I guess it was not accidental. I received the UV lamp (365 nm) today, the difference in the material is visible. I'm asking for your opinions (plastic, plaster or is it just dirty when gluing). Edited September 9 by Cicija Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 Pygidium is artificial, you can see it on the original pics, too different to the other parts 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicija Posted September 9 Author Share Posted September 9 Thanks for the answer. Honestly, I saw it without UV light. But the man doesn't want to admit that he was deceived and hopes to the end. By the way, I contacted the seller out of curiosity, he claims that he stated that the fossil was restored. Fortunately, I have a screenshot showing what he claims is a fossil in its natural state. Question for connoisseurs, where is the line between restoration and fake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trilobites_are_awesome Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 Fake (for me at least) when a trilobite is a composite or when a trilobite is 90% or more restored, If a trilobite meets any of these categories I consider it to be fake. 1 Cheers! James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 It is subjective. That said, honesty about how much restoration, and where, is good seller practice. 1 3 ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybot Posted Thursday at 12:02 AM Share Posted Thursday at 12:02 AM I personally think 50%+ restoration is moving into the ‘fake’ category, at least for me. I’m one of those that likes fossils 100% original, no matter how bad it looks. Like Kane mentioned, it’s subjective 1 -Jay “The earth doesn't need new continents, but new men.” ― Jules Verne, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kohler Palaeontology Posted Thursday at 09:27 AM Share Posted Thursday at 09:27 AM 9 hours ago, Jaybot said: I personally think 50%+ restoration is moving into the ‘fake’ category, at least for me. I’m one of those that likes fossils 100% original, no matter how bad it looks. Like Kane mentioned, it’s subjective Agreed. Personally, if I have to add putty to a fossil bone, I choose not to paint it so you can see where the real, and 'fake' bone is, also I think it looks cool if done right. I haven't had to do that yet though. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybot Posted Thursday at 11:47 PM Share Posted Thursday at 11:47 PM 14 hours ago, Kohler Palaeontology said: Agreed. Personally, if I have to add putty to a fossil bone, I choose not to paint it so you can see where the real, and 'fake' bone is, also I think it looks cool if done right. I haven't had to do that yet though. If I ever had to fill gaps, that’s exactly how I’d do it -Jay “The earth doesn't need new continents, but new men.” ― Jules Verne, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now