Fossil identification
10. Professionally qualified dealers
Again it is essential the collector source material only from
qualified dealers, preferably preparators – here at Triassica.com we
have the professional experience of a United Kingdom University
degree qualified biologist – indispensable for
determining genuine morphology of fossil specimens, beyond the
superficial similarities that a piece may present with.
11. Fossils from Thailand and Russia
Thailand is another source for the manufacture of dinosaur claws
(albeit material from the region is not readily found for sale
unless visiting the country) – mammalian bones being the
source material for carving to form small ‘raptor’ claws
with adjoining digit.
It should be appreciated that fossils considered beyond reproach
for being genuine, may be included as prospective doubtless authenticity – particularly
Russian trilobites – have you ever seen one less than perfect?
12. Fossils from China
We cannot end this exploration into the world of ingenious recreation
of fossils without covering the fabulous dinosaur and bird specimens
produced by one of the worlds oldest and most prolific regions
of replication – China.
Frequently offered for public sale – Chinese bird fossils
are generally either composite or complete fakes and present with
almost uniform appearance.
The bones of such may be simply painted onto the matrix, possibly
having been initially carved to render 3d form or extant bird bones
glued in place, then ‘aged’ (first being broken, damaged
to be more convincing).
Often compositing produces the familiar stylized presentation,
the matrix cracks and joints being filled with gesso.
Pterodactyls can be created using the basic fossil bird format,
extending the wings and skull shape – selling for higher
values than birds, why not make a pterodactyl instead of a less
profitable bird?
A search of the internet reveals some amazing (even comic) if
not ingenious examples of Chinese workmanship including a fossilized ‘rat’ made
from a fish.
The recent National Geographic debacle however serves as a sobering
example of spectacular craftsmanship whereby the prestigious publication
and the reputation of scientists associated with the ‘dinobird’ was
severely tarnished.
<< Back to fossil information
centre
|
