Please Refresh My Memory

I have a rather clear memory of having once seen what appears to be an alphabetic cuneiform tablet (I almost said “an Ugaritic tablet”) with the impression of the side of two tools, one rather clearly an (miniature?) adze on the reverse. These impressions look much like the impressions one sees in stone molds for making bronze tools. Well, I saw a couple of pictures of it again at lunch today.
As best I can tell from the pictures, the tablet is about 15 cm. long and 6 cm. wide. It is also about 2.5 – 3 cm. thick. The obverse is very flat and the reverse is quite rounded. Just now I don’t have a picture I can share but the text is about six lines of approximately 20 signs each on the obverse, three or four lines of the same length on the bottom edge extending around onto the reverse, then the impressions of the two tools, and then about four lines, again of about 20 signs each, below the tool impressions on the reverse.
While most (but not all) of the signs look like standard Ugaritic letters, I couldn’t read a single word. About 20% of the letters, particularly near the edges, are broken or worn beyond readability. A few seemingly readable letters don’t look much like Ugaritic but there aren’t enough of them nor do they have the right morphologies to be Akkadian like syllabic signs for the text to be (completely?) syllabic. In addition, I did not see a single b or d and only one m. On the other hand, or what looks like a rather normal Ugaritic is readable 12 times: twice in the sequence nḏ and twice in the sequence ḏl. The surrounding signs are uncertain or completely unreadable. To be sure, these two sequences occur in known Ugaritic texts but without the surrounding context, it’s hard to know what to make of them. It’s possible to make too much of it, but these admittedly informal letter frequencies don’t match Ugaritic or Akkadian. My not being able to read a single work of the tablet might argue for the text being Hurrain but I don’t think the letter frequencies (or lack of same) match Hurrian all that well either. As far as I could see, the text has one only wedge or stroke that might be a word divider.
As far as I know, nothing like this tablet has been published but I may not know of everything from recent excavations.
My first, second and third, opinion is that this tablet is a fake. But I’m curious if anyone else has seen it and where. I hope to have a photograph or two and perhaps some kind of a working transliteration in a few days. Whoever made this thing went to a lot of trouble.