Silence about these mushrooms only confirms my belief that Tarzetta is a difficult topic not only for me.
However, I will present one more collection. Also found in the deciduous forest, this time without Betula. The size of the fruiting bodies is similar to the previous collection. The shape of the parphises is also similar.
From the macroscopic features, you can see the difference in the pericarpus edge, which in this case is smoother.
Spores, on the other hand, are much larger:
(23) 23.9 - 25.7 (26.1) × (12.2) 12.3 - 13.5 (13.9) µm
Q = (1.8) 1.83 - 2 (2.1); N = 11
Me = 24.8 × 13.1 µm; Qe = 1.9
24.58 13.30
23.00 12.84
25.34 12.16
23.91 12.34
24.59 13.01
26.06 12.80
25.67 13.42
24.10 13.15
25.17 13.35
25.50 13.85
24.62 13.47

Are such features compatible with Tarzetta spurcata ??

I have probably looked through all the threads about Tarzetta in this forum. I was interested in Nicolas's statement in one of them:
http://www.ascofrance.com/search_forum/2568
Let me quote from:
"L'aspect noduleux ou digité des paraphyses rappelle plus volontiers Tarzetta spurcata (Pers.) Harmaja (= Peziza ochracea Boud.) Mais cette espèce possède normalement des spores un peu plus petites: 20-23 × 10-12 µm d'après Harmaja (1974), 18.2-24.2 × 9.4-12.5 µm d'après Häffner (1992) et d'après mes propres récoltes 18-22 × 11-12.5 µm. Harmaja considerère cette espèce comme relativement "grosse 'par rapport à une autre espèce, très proche, qui s'appelle Tarzetta pusilla Harmaja dont les apothécies ne mesurent qu'env. 5 mm de diamètre. Cette petite espèce présente des paraphyses similaires et les spores sont un peu plus larges: 20-23 × 11.5-13 µm. "

The statement is very archival, so I suspect that a lot has changed in this topic, but despite this I would like to ask if the spore dimensions given in this thread for T. spurcata are still valid or should they be larger?
Mirek

Dear Myrek,
Tarzetta is a difficult genus and my preliminary works show that there is a high diversity because these species form ectomycorrhizas (https://doi.org/10.25664/art-0288). The ecology is very important to try a determination, so "deciduous trees" is not sufficient, although it's sometimes hard to evaluate the host-tree.
Your second collection fits well with T. ochracea but is there some Fagaceae in this place?
I consider T. spurcata as a nomen ambiguum and use T. ochracea for the species having large and sessile apothecia, with ascospores 19–24 (24.5) × 11–13.5 (14) ?m (based on my collections).
Your first collection seems to be short stipitate (true?) so maybe more related to T. catinus / pseudocatinus.
Hope this helps.

I suggest you to publish this new subject in a new post (subject different).