Search the Community

Beautiful 5.75" light colored C. megalodon tooth from Georgia. This tooth is thick and heavy too, weighing just under a pound at 15 5/8 ounces. Not your everyday Georgian meg!

This is a quality upper principle C. megalodon tooth with classic heart shape from the waters of South Carolina. This is a beast of a tooth weighing exactly 1 lb, not 100% perfect but is 100% all natural.

This is a quality upper principle C. megalodon tooth with classic heart shape from the waters of South Carolina. This is a beast of a tooth weighing exactly 1 lb, not 100% perfect but is 100% all natural.

This is a quality upper principle C. megalodon tooth with classic heart shape from the waters of South Carolina. This is a beast of a tooth weighing exactly 1 lb, not 100% perfect but is 100% all natural.

This 6.17 inch South Carolina Megalodon tooth has excellent serrations and tip for a tooth this size. No resto or repair. It's a beast and arrived just in time for Shark Week!! (This is the same tooth I posted earlier today, but I like the darker background better)

This 6.18 inch South Carolina Megalodon tooth has excellent serrations and tip for a tooth this size. No resto or repair. It's a beast and arrived just in time for Shark Week!! (This is the same tooth I posted earlier today, but I like the darker background better)

This 6.18 inch South Carolina Megalodon tooth has excellent serrations and tip for a tooth this size. No resto or repair. It's a beast and arrived just in time for Shark Week!! (This is the same tooth I posted earlier today, but I like the darker background better)

This is the biggest tooth in my collection, a true megatooth. It is 6.6 inches along the longest slant, 4.9 inches in width at the root, and is from South Carolina. There are not repairs or restoration on this one. Not the highest quality tooth in my collection, but for this size it it in great shape. The root and blade are completely intact, good enamel, decent serrations and tip. The top layer of bourlette is missing which is probably fortunate or I might not have been able to afford this one! The thought of the shark that once owned this tooth ... WOW!

This is a pristine 4 inch Megalodon tooth from Georgia, USA. I use this one to show people who see my collection what each part of the tooth is suppose to look like (ie. root, bourlette, serrations, enamel, etc.). What is lacks in size, it makes up in quality.

This beautiful Aurora / Lee Creek, NC tooth was discovered back in the 1980's and is a recent addition. It is exactly 5.70 inches in longest slant length and is a top quality tooth from this location with only very minor imperfections. Some very rich colors in the enamel and no repair or restoration on this monster tooth. This tooth is worth a few extra photos! Easily one of my new favorites! "they don't make them like this anymore"

I finally had a chance to take a picture of all the Megs and Meg ancestors in my collections as of 9/26/13. Largest tooth in the back row is 6.6 inches and largest tooth in the second row is a 6.2 inch Chilean, for reference. The more exotic locations are on the second/middle row starting on the left. From left to right on the 2nd row is a 6.2" Chilean, 6.0" Chilean, 5.2" Aurora, 5.1" Cuban, and then 4.6" Cuban. The rest are from the more typical locations (mostly Carolinas, Florida, and Georgia).

These are a few examples of the hypothesized Carcharocles Megalodon Evolution. I am sure some will chime in that not everyone agrees on this evolutionary chain, but I for one think it is very plausible (see below for some information on other suggested classifications). The teeth are from different location and are all in the 3.4 inch to 3.5 inch range. It took me quite a while to put this set of similar sized top quality teeth together. From left to right (in chronological order): 1. Otodus obliquus : 3.5 inch tooth from Morocco. Lived during the Paleocene to Eocene epochs, about 60 to 45 million years ago. 2. Carcharocles auriculatus : 3.4 inch tooth from South Carolina. Lived during the Eocene epoch, about 55 to 45 million years ago. 3. Carcharocles angustidens : 3.4 inch tooth from South Carolina . Lived during the late Eocene to Oligocene epochs, about 45 to 28 million years ago 4. Carcharocles chubutensis : 3.4 inch tooth from Aurora, North Carolina. Lived during the Miocene epoch, about 26 to 15 million years ago. 5. Carcharocles Megalodon : 3.5 inch tooth from Georgia. Lived during the late Oligocene to early Pleistocene epochs, about approximately 28 to 1.5 million years ago. Of interest in these photos would be the changes from Otodus (no serrations) to C. auriculatus (serrations), gradual evolutionary loss of the lateral cusps, and maintained chevron-shaped bourlette. You can also see the change in the root shape/contour and thickness over time. Thanks for looking! If you are interested in the different evolutionary hypothesis for Megalodon and Great White sharks, like I am, you may occasionally get confused by the terminology and changing classifications. There are different trains of thought out there among marine paleobiologist and shark experts who seem to interpret the evidence differently and are always coming out with new information to support their classifications. Below is my attempt to summarize at least some of the major schools of classification for megalodon. - Three main theories: 1. Order: Lamniformes -> Family: Lamnidae -> Genus: Carcharodon (ie. Carcharodon megalodon) 2a. Order: Lamniformes -> Family: Otodontidae -> Genus : Carcharocles (ie. Carcharocles megalodon) 2b. Order: Lamniformes -> Family: Otodontidae -> Genus : Otodus (ie. Otodus megalodon) 3. Chronospecies theory -> Carcharocles megalodon is one species that gradually evolved over time. -Origin of "Megalodon": Megalodon teeth were first identified as shark's teeth by Danish naturalist, Nicolaus Steno, in 1667. It was not until 1835 that Swiss naturalist, Louis Agassiz, proposed the scientific name of Carcharodon megalodon in his research Recherches sur les poissons fossils (research on the fossil fish). In 1923 the genus Carcharocles was proposed by D.D. Jordon and H. Hannibal for classification of the auriculatus species (Carcharocles auriculatus) and later proponents suggested megalodon also should be included in this genus. There is still debate about the placement of megalodon, with the some suggesting Megalodon is of close relation to modern great white sharks (ie. supporters of Family: Lamnidae, Genus: Carcharodon lineage). This is opposed by those who suggest that convergent evolution is responsible for the teeth similarities between megalodon and great whites and that megalodon is not closely related to modern great whites (ie. supports of Family: Otodontidae Genus: Carcharocles or Otodus lineage). Factoid: Convergent evolution is independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages, creating analogous structure separately. The "Family: Lamnidae, Genus: Carcharadon supports", tend to believe that both modern great white sharks and megalodon sharks come from a common ancestor, that some propose to be Palaeocarcharodon orientalis. The main reasons for this concept are phylogenic similarities in teeth of the two species in the opinion of these supporters. Other evidence these supported cite includes evidence that the internal calcification patterns of vertebrae from great white and megalodon sharks are similar enough to suggest the two are related. Also, some evidence in the fossil record suggests that megalodon sharks were present as far back as those of C. angustidens and C. chubutensis, thus suggesting megalodon was not a descendent of this line according to these supports. The "Family: Otodontidae Genus: Carcharocles supporters", tend to suggest that megalodon is a descendant of Otodus obliquus, and that great white sharks had a separate and unrelated evolution from ancient mako sharks (ie. Isurus hastalis, the broad-tooth mako). These supports suggest that the similarities between great white and megalodon teeth are superficial at best and include some noticeable morphometric difference, with the one of the most noticeable probably being the chevron shaped bourlette that is absent in makos and great white teeth but present on megalodon and his proposed ancestors). The suggested lineage from this camp goes as follows : Otodus obliquus -> Otodus aksuaticus-> Carcharocles auriculatus -> Carcharocles angustidens ->Carcharocles chubutensis -> Carcharocles megalodon. Other supporters of this classification system agree with the evolutionary order but not the genus designation, as they do not recognize the need to use the genus “Carcharocles” described in 1923. These latter supports use the genus “Otodus” to describe Otodus obliquus and his subsequent descendents (ie. Otodus auriculatus, Otodus angustidens, Otodus chubutensis, Otodus megalodon). Yet another evolutionary concept suggested by shark researcher , David Ward, is that megalodon is chronospecies. In this concept, Carchocles megalodon is in fact the only member of it’s evolutionary tree and is the same species as Otodus obliquus, C. auriculatus, C. angustidens, and C. chubutensis. The idea here is that Carcharocles megalodon was a single species that lived from the Paleocene to Pliocene Epochs and gradually changed during this time. With all this said, I am the furthest thing from an expert, but from the evidence and literature I have read, I personally believe that Megalodon is part of the Otodus/Carcharocles lineage. I can also consider that it could be a chronospecies that gradually evolved over time, without the intermediates having a clearly defined "stop" of one species and “start” of another. This typically gradual change and adaptation is how I think of evolution anyway. It would make a funny cartoon strip though… with a picture of an ancient shark talking to a shark dentist who looks in his mouth and says “oh you must be a Carcharocles auriculatus by the looks of things”, and the shark replies back “No, I am a Carcharocles angustidens today, but yesterday I was a Carcharocles auriculatus”. Maybe I am the only one that thinks this would be funny? Anyway, I just don’t think it works like that. Who knows! I enjoy collecting them no matter how they are classified.

This is a quality 5.8 inch C. megalodon tooth from Georgia. I would grade this tooth as a solid 3.0 out of a possible 4.0 on my personal grading scale. Grading scale you might ask? Well, I think it is important for collectors who purchase many of their fossilized sharks teeth to develop their own non-biased grading system for the quality of a tooth. With the tooth grade, location, and size, you can get a pretty good feel for the market prices over time. Location and size are objective/constant variables of a tooth that will not change, but the "quality" or "grade" of a tooth can be somewhat subjective. So, I find it helpful to look for the same morphologic features in every tooth (ie. root, enamel, bourlette, serrations, tip, tooth position, etc.). I then grade the tooth on a scale between 1.0 being the lowest quality and 4.0 being the highest and nearly flawless top 1% of teeth. I have some set parameters of what a grade 1 vs. grade 2 vs, grade 3, vs grade 4 should have or not have. As long as you are consistent in your grading scheme, it seems to work pretty well. I hate to admit it, but I even take it a step further and collect the data from my purchases, other people's ebay auctions, and other people's purchases from dealers. I keep this in an excel file that I can add to and reference. So at any given time, I can look up a 5.8" grade 3 megalodon tooth from Georgia , or a 5.4" grade 2.5 Lee Creek megalodon tooth, etc., and see what others or even myself previously paid for it. Crazy, I know!!

This is a quality 5.8 inch C. megalodon tooth from Georgia. I would grade this tooth as a solid 3.0 out of a possible 4.0 on my personal grading scale. Grading scale you might ask? Well, I think it is important for collectors who purchase many of their fossilized sharks teeth to develop their own non-biased grading system for the quality of a tooth. With the tooth grade, location, and size, you can get a pretty good feel for the market prices over time. Location and size are objective/constant variables of a tooth that will not change, but the "quality" or "grade" of a tooth can be somewhat subjective. So, I find it helpful to look for the same morphologic features in every tooth (ie. root, enamel, bourlette, serrations, tip, tooth position, etc.). I then grade the tooth on a scale between 1.0 being the lowest quality and 4.0 being the highest and nearly flawless top 1% of teeth. I have some set parameters of what a grade 1 vs. grade 2 vs, grade 3, vs grade 4 should have or not have. As long as you are consistent in your grading scheme, it seems to work pretty well. I hate to admit it, but I even take it a step further and collect the data from my purchases, other people's ebay auctions, and other people's purchases from dealers. I keep this in an excel file that I can add to and reference. So at any given time, I can look up a 5.8" grade 3 megalodon tooth from Georgia , or a 5.4" grade 2.5 Lee Creek megalodon tooth, etc., and see what others or even myself previously paid for it. Crazy, I know!!

This is a quality 5.8 inch C. megalodon tooth from Georgia. I would grade this tooth as a solid 3.0 out of a possible 4.0 on my personal grading scale. Grading scale you might ask? Well, I think it is important for collectors who purchase many of their fossilized sharks teeth to develop their own non-biased grading system for the quality of a tooth. With the tooth grade, location, and size, you can get a pretty good feel for the market prices over time. Location and size are objective/constant variables of a tooth that will not change, but the "quality" or "grade" of a tooth can be somewhat subjective. So, I find it helpful to look for the same morphologic features in every tooth (ie. root, enamel, bourlette, serrations, tip, tooth position, etc.). I then grade the tooth on a scale between 1.0 being the lowest quality and 4.0 being the highest and nearly flawless top 1% of teeth. I have some set parameters of what a grade 1 vs. grade 2 vs, grade 3, vs grade 4 should have or not have. As long as you are consistent in your grading scheme, it seems to work pretty well. I hate to admit it, but I even take it a step further and collect the data from my purchases, other people's ebay auctions, and other people's purchases from dealers. I keep this in an excel file that I can add to and reference. So at any given time, I can look up a 5.8" grade 3 megalodon tooth from Georgia , or a 5.4" grade 2.5 Lee Creek megalodon tooth, etc., and see what others or even myself previously paid for it. Crazy, I know!!

This is a nice 5.77 inch Megalodon tooth from Georgia with colorful enamel for the location.

This is a nice 5.77 inch Megalodon tooth from Georgia with colorful enamel for the location.

This is a nice 5.77 inch Megalodon tooth from Georgia with colorful enamel for the location.

This beautiful Aurora / Lee Creek, NC tooth was discovered back in the 1980's and is a recent addition. It is exactly 5.70 inches in longest slant length and is a top quality tooth from this location with only very minor imperfections. Some very rich colors in the enamel and no repair or restoration on this monster tooth. This tooth is worth a few extra photos! Easily one of my new favorites! "they don't make them like this anymore"

This beautiful Aurora / Lee Creek, NC tooth was discovered back in the 1980's and is a recent addition. It is exactly 5.70 inches in longest slant length and is a top quality tooth from this location with only very minor imperfections. Some very rich colors in the enamel and no repair or restoration on this monster tooth. This tooth is worth a few extra photos! Easily one of my new favorites! "they don't make them like this anymore"

This beautiful Aurora / Lee Creek, NC tooth was discovered back in the 1980's and is a recent addition. It is exactly 5.70 inches in longest slant length and is a top quality tooth from this location with only very minor imperfections. Some very rich colors in the enamel and no repair or restoration on this monster tooth. Easily one of my new favorites! "they don't make them like this anymore"

This beautiful Aurora / Lee Creek, NC tooth was discovered back in the 1980's and is a recent addition. It is exactly 5.70 inches in longest slant length and is a top quality tooth from this location with only very minor imperfections. Some very rich colors in the enamel and no repair or restoration on this monster tooth. This tooth is worth a few extra photos! Easily one of my new favorites! "they don't make them like this anymore"

This beautiful Aurora / Lee Creek, NC tooth was discovered back in the 1980's and is a recent addition. It is exactly 5.70 inches in longest slant length and is a top quality tooth from this location with only very minor imperfections. Some very rich colors in the enamel and no repair or restoration on this monster tooth. This tooth is worth a few extra photos! Easily one of my new favorites! "they don't make them like this anymore"

This beautiful Aurora / Lee Creek, NC tooth was discovered back in the 1980's and is a recent addition. It is exactly 5.70 inches in longest slant length and is a top quality tooth from this location with only very minor imperfections. Some very rich colors in the enamel and no repair or restoration on this monster tooth. This tooth is worth a few extra photos! Easily one of my new favorites! "they don't make them like this anymore"

This is a 5.29 inch Megalodon tooth from a land site in the North Point Florida area. The colors and patterns are exceptional!