Gizmodo57%

I Can’t Afford This T. Rex up for Auction at Sotheby’s. Starting Bid is $19 Million 50%

By Matthew Phelan36%

7/6/2026, 10:00:47 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Sunk Cost Effect, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 20.5% saturation with 135 hits. Analysis detected 1,014 faulty-reasoning hits from 657 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.9% and a BS Rank of 50% (11,131 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.90% of the article peer group.

Dearly departed South Dakota cattle rancher Gary “Gus” Licking had a hunch that the small bone and teeth fragments he kept coming across on his 6,500-acre property might part of be something big. 
And, like a character in a Far Side cartoon, he was right: The dirt beneath his Harding County ranch hid one of the largest and most complete Tyrannosaurus rex skeletons ever discovered—a 38-foot (11.6-meter) long, nearly 12.5-foot (3.8-meter) tall monster now named “Gus” in his honor. 
Reconstructed from 183 fossilized bones and roughly 63% complete, Gus the T. rex hasn’t looked quite this good since he walked prehistoric North America during the Maastrichtian period, roughly 72 million to 66 million years ago. 
The dinosaur is now slated for auction at Sotheby’s in New York, where Gus debuted for public viewing on Wednesday ahead of bidding set to begin this July 14. 
Sotheby’s global head of science and natural history Cassandra Hatton said that it was “the completeness, the quality, the size, [and] the preservation” that made Gus stand out as a viable auction item, according to Reuters. 
The opening bid for this towering slice of prehistory, per Sotheby’s online bidding registry, is set at $19 million. 
Please refrain from posting your Venmo in the comments. 
Old Wealth 
“What I think is really important for people to understand, when we talk about dinosaur fossils, is that they don’t come out of the ground complete,” Hatton told Reuters. 
“It takes highly specialized, careful, diligent, skilled people to recognize what they’re looking at, to tell the difference between a piece of rock and a piece of this animal.” 
Perhaps for that very reason, the T. 
Rex fossil’s value has been assessed at somewhere between $20 million and $30 million. 
The price is reportedly the highest estimate ever for a dinosaur fossil at auction—although not the highest final price, a designation that goes to the Stegosaurus skeleton “Apex,” which sold for a staggering $44 million at Sotheby’s two years ago. 
“The dinosaur market today is broader than most people realize—and widening,” Hatton, who is also Sotheby’s vice chair, told artnet via email this May. 
“Interest now comes not only from U.S.-based museums and private collectors, but also major international museums, foundations, and individuals creating destinations of their own. 
What unites them isn’t a single profile but a shared respect and curiosity for objects.” 
‘The world’s hardest puzzle’ 
The task of carefully excavating and reconstructing Gus came down to a team of commercial paleontologists with Theropoda Expeditions, which labored over three summers from 2021 into 2023 to carefully remove these fossilized T. rex bones from the Licking ranch. 
Gus Licking passed away one year into the excavation, but his widow Dana has continued to follow the project. 
According to Theropoda’s president, Thomas Heitkamp, the process of reassembling the T. rex was laborious, but rewarding. 
All told, the Theropoda team spent nearly five years on the project: the three years of excavation and research, plus another two years cleaning, identifying, cataloging, and ultimately assembling Gus. 
The process finally concluded earlier this year. 
“It really does feel like tackling the world’s hardest puzzle, except we have to find all the pieces first,” Heitkamp said, according to a report in the Australian Financial Review this May. 
“All those bones separated for 67 million years that we can now, almost magically, fit back together.” 
Naturally, opinions differ on the ethics of privately auctioning off these arguably priceless additions of our planet’s fossil record. 
Some scholars have argued that the practice “incentivizes” hoaxes, while others have pointed to rising auction prices for these dinosaur specimens as a barrier to both public museums and research institutions. 
For her part, Hatton at Sotheby’s told the Financial Review that, in her view, “These sales are super important because they are helping us find fossils that would otherwise be lost to everyone.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.1%Matthew Phelan: 4.6%Gizmodo: 4.1%Confirmation Bias1.1%This article: 5.8%Matthew Phelan: 1.3%Gizmodo: 1.4%Anchoring Bias5.8%This article: 10.4%Matthew Phelan: 4.3%Gizmodo: 3.1%Availability Heuristic10.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 4.0%Gizmodo: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.0%Matthew Phelan: 1.4%Gizmodo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 3.6%Gizmodo: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Matthew Phelan: 3.0%Gizmodo: 5.5%Framing Effect0.9%This article: 5.8%Matthew Phelan: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.5%Loss Aversion5.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%Matthew Phelan: 0.9%Gizmodo: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect10.7%This article: 10.2%Matthew Phelan: 1.2%Gizmodo: 3.9%Optimism Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 2.6%Gizmodo: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Matthew Phelan: 9.5%Gizmodo: 7.5%Negativity Bias5.8%This article: 5.0%Matthew Phelan: 2.3%Gizmodo: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 1.5%Gizmodo: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Matthew Phelan: 1.1%Gizmodo: 2.9%Halo Effect9.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Matthew Phelan: 2.1%Gizmodo: 1.6%Recency Bias6.1%This article: 3.7%Matthew Phelan: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.4%Primacy Effect3.7%This article: 4.4%Matthew Phelan: 0.6%Gizmodo: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.9%Gizmodo: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.5%Gizmodo: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.5%Matthew Phelan: 7.8%Gizmodo: 4.3%Appeal to Authority20.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 2.9%Gizmodo: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.7%Matthew Phelan: 5.2%Gizmodo: 5.3%Hasty Generalization4.7%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.7%Matthew Phelan: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.9%Bandwagon3.7%This article: 13.1%Matthew Phelan: 7.0%Gizmodo: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion13.1%This article: 1.1%Matthew Phelan: 1.1%Gizmodo: 1.0%Begging the Question1.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 2.9%Gizmodo: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.0%Matthew Phelan: 2.8%Gizmodo: 2.0%Anecdotal7.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 2.5%Gizmodo: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.9%Matthew Phelan: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.1%Middle Ground2.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 1.5%Gizmodo: 4.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 5.6%Matthew Phelan: 1.9%Gizmodo: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection5.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 11.5%Gizmodo: 13.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 4.4%Matthew Phelan: 1.9%Gizmodo: 1.6%Indoctrination4.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 1.9%Gizmodo: 1.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Phelan: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Matthew Phelan: 0.3%Gizmodo: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.3%

657 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers39%attributed speech401writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageCassandra Hatton • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageCassandra Hatton • 29 words • 100.0% coverageCassandra Hatton • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageCassandra Hatton • 24 words • 0.0% coverageCassandra Hatton • 24 words • 0.0% coverageCassandra Hatton • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Heitkamp • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Heitkamp • 32 words • 100.0% coverageThomas Heitkamp • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageCassandra Hatton • 33 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Thomas Heitkamp

100%flagged-word coverage
66 attributed words26% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Quote-first Misdirection+47.2 ptsWriter: 1.2%Thomas Heitkamp: 48.5%48.5%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%Thomas Heitkamp: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.