Clovis point authentication help

[mikeclark]

Hey Everyone,
I recently acquired two pieces in a specimen box with labels from a collector's estate who had passed away. As you can see from the old, typed labels in the photos, one is identified as a Clovis and the other Kirk. Both also show the locations where found and material. This is not my area of expertise (not even certain the tags are not switched up) so wanted to check with the enthusiasts on this board if there are any indications whether these are Paleo or of recent making.
Greatly appreciate any help!

TIA!
Mike

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[CreekSide]

We have a few that might know for sure.
Just throwing this out there but both look like the same material and same stain. The one that’s labeled a Kirk doesn’t look like a Kirk I’ve ever seen in my area. Both points would be different ages so I wouldn’t expect to see the same age on both imo. But let’s see what the more experienced guys say. I’m good at points from my area but not the ones you have. Thanks for showing them I hope they are the real deal.

 

[CreekSide]

I looked for the Kirk in the VA section and couldn’t find anything that looked like it except Stanly Narrow Stem minus the serrated edges. Nothing else stood out as a type

 

[smokeythecat]

If I remember a Hellgramite point was shaped somewhat like that one. I don't remember much about that though.

 

[Buckleberry]

That "Kirk" is weird, you don't see many large points like that, that are serrated.
If the Clovis is legit, that would be worth alot of money.

 

[dognose]

these are interesting peices.

from a collection standpoint it would be worthwhile knowing who the collector is and exactly where he was located.

I agree that it's not a often you would find two different period points made from similar material.

I have not personally seen a kirk with heavy serrations in that manner.

Have you washed these and used a loupe to check mineralization and patina? original dirt in crevices is nice to have, but on reproduction pieces dirt is rubbed in and is left to give the appearance of authenticity and hide makers markings and confuse would be buyers.

even seasoned collectors can be and have been taken by these tricks.

its virtually impossible to say difinatvely authentic relics from a photo. for that reason I suggest attending a Central States Archaeological Society relic show and get a hands on opinion from multiple long time collectors.
there is a show Feb 17 in North Carolina

Central States Archaeological Societies current show events

Central States Archaeological Societies current show events

csasi.org

all opinions are just that, opinions. but they are backed by experience.

so buy a good loupe and learn for yourself what to look for.

 

[CreekSide]

There were people that made reproductions from slabs one is called a Reinhart and the other is called a Grey Ghost. I’m pretty sure the one on the left is a slab cut idk about the right one. But I did notice the Clovis tag is newer than the other. But I just don’t know why. I’d keep them even if they were reproduction pieces.

 

[newnan man]

I agree that both points being of similar material is a red flag. Also I've never seen a point like the one labeled a Kirk. There is nothing about it that would make me think it is a Kirk or even authentic. There are a few authenticators who are very experienced and honest. Jim Bennett would give you a correct answer at a reasonable cost.

 

[fishstick]

The one on the left would be a Kirk serrated but normally the barbs happen after use and not first stage like this. Another reason why I find and not buy, even the best can be fooled sometimes!!

 

[mikeclark]

I'm much more interested in authenticating the Clovis, the one on the right, and not so much the Kirk. Is there more that can be determined about the Clovis from the photos?

 

[antmike915]

I also agree with both being made of simular material is a red flag. Another thing I find odd is the difference in color on the ridges of the flake scars (especially on the Clovis).

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Sorry, have to agree with the others, for me there are several red flags, the fact they both appear to be from the exact same type material is a red flag, the patina in pictures seems off. A lot of times they used acid to try to fake patina and sometimes you can taste it with the tip of tongue.

Also for the age each should be uniform in color and in pictures posted they don't appear to be, the flute on clovis especially, but could just be the pictures. They also look like they were worked by the same person by the way they are worked.

Just my personal opinion......

 

[mikeclark]

Thanks everyone for all the advice and taking your time to lend your opinion! Very informative for a newbie like myself.

 

[Older The Better]

I know I’m late to the party but I don’t think anyone mentioned the fact that a perfect 6” Clovis next to another perfect 6” point is a flag too. Not impossible and definitely worth getting an expert opinion but I get suspicious when points seem too good to be true.

 

[ToddsPoint]

Put that Clovis under a stereo microscope and you’ll be able to tell in 2 seconds if it’s real. Under magnification you should see a dozen different types of mineral deposits. No modern fakers can replicate multiple types of mineralization.

 

[Relicgrubber]

These two artifacts would fail authentication by first looks alone imo… So until they are scrutinized with magnification by a seasoned collector/authenticator you will never know if they are authentic…

Send them off to get a COA.

 

[Almy]

Regardless of origin, they are both beautiful pieces of workmanship. Think of the number of hand movements needed. And after all that pressure flaking, they have a symmetrical and attractive overall shape. If I were doing it, I think it would take a great many broken and irregular samples before I could hope to do something so nice.