I understand how to make this distinction when I have physical access to the material, but not just from a visual inspection. I thought the advice to Doug Lundberg was rather harsh, i.e. quit his business. The note by Jens von Holt was harsh. Within a small community, such as amber collectors, a bit of speculatory fun is certainly acceptable especially when it refers to such a rare occurrence. We all have many more doubts about the authenticity of that peice than certainty.
Good fakes can be interesting.
This could be a good fake since it made it so far in the market. Obviously a good fake would be hard to tell from just photos. It would be interesting to hear how the epoxy theory was formed by these photos. It may be reconstituted amber. I've seen several similar peices in the market place.