There are a few things I see which makes me suspect of this relic.
I am not stating this is an authentic relic, and I am not saying this is a non-authentic relic.
I am of the school that authentic cannot be determined from photos.
I also have to admit over the 54 years of hunting and collecting relics I have purchased non-authentic relics unknowingly. I have been duped and on a few occasions only after intense scrutiny under magnification and deep thought have I determined the proposed relic was fraudulent. Also let it be known that the biggest perpetrator of passing the fraudulent items was a person who I came to know for many years and I considered a friend. This person had basically targeted me as a mark of sorts.
But that's another story for a much larger post. Just to say I have been bitten and know the dog.
So I put no shame on those who have this cast upon them, and state they have been burned.
Concerning this bird stone:
I agree with monsterrack that the surface strikes me off. I cant put my finger on it. Possibly the way the brown mineralization appears too consistent over the surface.
View attachment 1912454
The hold looks incorrect to me when I magnify the photo and crop away the other areas.
Look at the hole it appears to be counter sunk. (red arrows)
It also has what appears to be chatter marks from being drilled. (black arrow)
View attachment 1912449
This photo shows what appears to be the intersection of the basal hole and the front hole. I think this is looking in from the birds head point of view, the drill hole from the base looks odd to e.
View attachment 1912451
however the dark shadow area looks like an area where the area was drilled backed off and when in further to intersect. Again in the upper area chatter type marks appear to be visible.
This may be a factor of the light casting odd shadows, one cant really tell from photos.
View attachment 1912452
I am of the school on questionable relics, that if I have to question it, or wonder too long, I pass on them.