Search the Community

Good morning! I have a question. How old is the copal from Montagne d'Ambre in Madagascar? I recently purchased two such specimens with insect and plant inclusions and I am delighted with them. The age given in scientific literature is: 1-2 million years, 100,000 years, 50,000 to 60,000 years, 1,000 years, several hundred years, even 300 years. What is the truth, or at least which of these answers is more likely?

I recently obtained this piece of amber, which was described as being from Myanmar, and therefore of cretaceous age. I got it very cheaply, I'd say (from a well known auction site), and this led another collector to rather rudely assert that it was fake. I have no reason to assume that it is fake, but at the same time, I'm having trouble proving that it's authentic. When I poke it with a hot needle, the needle makes an impression but doesn't slice straight through it. Dark grey smoke rose from it, which didn't smell of plastic. When I rub it vigorously with a soft cloth, it gives off a mild resinous aroma, but doesn't get sticky. It floats in salty water, in the same way as my Dominican amber does (my Baltic amber slowly sank, but I suspect I didn't have enough salt in the water). I haven't been able to get it to hold a static charge, but then I can't with any of my amber, so I must be doing that all wrong. I wouldn't normally post most of these pictures, because all but one qualify as photographic failures, but I've since re-polished the surfaces for future photography (my spare-room studio being out of action at present). Note a seed (?) of some kind just above the antenna, near the top, and some kind of larva or something to the left of the millipede. That looks like a tiny beetle on the left hand side of this one. General inclusions, including bubbles and an insect 'riding' on one, centre-right. One of the pseudoscorpions. There are various other inclusions too, including another pseudoscorpion and one tiny spider. I don't see any way in which this is an out-and-out fake (e.g. plastic). So that leaves the possibility that it's authentic, or copal, or that it's amber with the insects inserted afterwards. I'm very doubtful of the later, because they are randomly placed in the amber and I don't see any signs of tampering. That would seem like a lot of effort for something sold for £35/$45. It doesn't seem to have any of those little oak hair things that you get in Baltic amber. Not sure whether cretaceous amber, or copal, have those or not. I'd welcome any thoughts on this. Thanks.

Hi everyone, I was going through my rock collection, and I found a bunch of very tiny rocks at the bottom of the box. I immediately thought they looked like Amber or Copal. I took them out of the box, and I did the UV test. It turns out, I was right. It’s either Amber or Copal. I can tell by how it is glowing under the UV light. I pulled out my microscope and looked inside it, and did not see any insects. Oh well, I said. Then, I decided to do the hot needle test on one of the small pieces. During the test, the small piece broke, and it was kind of sticking to the needle a little bit. (The needle went in a little bit, making it stuck.) However, the needle did go in slightly before the small piece broke. Judging from the information I have, can anyone tell me if this is Amber or Copal? If you need more information or another test, I will do it. Pictures are attached, Jared

I don’t know from which locality this specimen originated. I found it among my late grandfather’s property. From what I can gather, this is an extremely large specimen of amber. It weighs approximately 110 lbs, measures approximately 22” x 18” x 11” and features many interesting inclusions from what i can see. I’ve performed a scratch test, hot needle test, acetone test, smell test, saltwater test, UV light test, and specific gravity test… all of which seem to confirm its identity as amber. If this is true, however, based on the information I can find, it would seem that I’ve come into possession of one of the largest pieces of amber on record. You can imagine my skepticism at having made this discovery in a small neighborhood in southern Indiana… I haven’t a clue what to do next—please help!

I’m a fisherman and I’ve just done a trip on a Beamer trawler. We were fishing 20 miles south of lizard point in Cornwall and caught this in one tow. The skipper and his father both said they’ve seen this before but it’s not common, neither knew what it is exactly. It was in one lump but my fellow crewmen hit it with a rail pin and it split. Can anyone tell me what it is? It’s very pretty and I can see loads of inclusions when I hold fragments up to the light. It also smells strongly of pine.

Hello everyone! I was just curious as to what you think of this specimen. I'm aware users here are (understandably) very sceptical of lizards in amber/copal, so I'd love to hear what you have toto say about it. Here are the details: Species is unknown From Colombia, thought to be from Pliocene/Pleistocene The lizard measures 30 millimetres. Total measurement with copal is 50 x 40 x 0.50 mm Full image: Base - partial tail and leg, with one foot visible on the right Torso - possible predation? Also note the little stump where the leg should be. Head - possible mineralised blood above head? Note large bug on the left Bugs located at the top, to the right of the head

I was encouraged to share this in the forum so here it goes. I was given a pile of "amber" and two pieces that may or may not (most likely not) have something inside. After the "amber" failed the saltwater float test it was proposed that I may have copal, NOT amber. I tried my best to take as clear of pictures as my camera phone would allow. The first piece supposedly it has a "bug or stick or something" inside. The copal, if it really is copal, does not appear very clear, even with a light source behind it. The second piece is a little more transparent when the light shines through with the exception of the mysterious dark object lurking on the middle. (queue the spooky music!) Personally I think that both of these may just be dirt that accumulated in a crack when the copal was forming a long ago but this has apparently been a topic of hot debate. So if ya'll got any opinions on the matter, I'd love to hear them...or if you don't want to share your opinions, just tell me that I've discovered some weird new sub-species of dinosaur and I'll be happy with that. lol

I bought this bit of Madagascar copal a year ago, then finally got a decent microscope to see the bugs this week. They are less than a mm each. Now I'm stumped. I am a certified *modern* naturalist. I know something about insects. This one fits all the defining characteristics of an adult insect - probably Coleoptera - except that I only see four legs and may or may not have had antennae at some point. The heads are not very clear at any angle. On the bottom view, there are nubs at the end of the abdomen that *could* be legs, but that is the wrong place for insect legs. On the side views, it looks like there might be legs folded backward, as is common with some beetles, but the underside view also does not show any attachment points where there might have been legs that broke off. Any paleo-entomologists out there to point out what I am clearly missing in these pictures?

I inherited a friend's mineral collection. Lot's of interesting specimens of turquoise, petrified wood, crystals, etc. He lived in New Mexico and I know some of the pieces are from U.S. southwest area. That's about all I know. This one's a mystery, and he really didn't have any idea either where it came from. Has a strangely organic look to it though. Any insight or thoughts will be appreciated. Thanks!

I newely collected this copal. But, there are lots of crazing on it't surface. I can sure it is copal because i do acetone test so this is more weak then amber. I thinking about grinding this nicely with soft cloth and tooth paste. I want to know it is ok to copal, and how to store it without crazing. Thanks for your help, and apologize to my short English...

First off I am new to this forum and I greatly appreciate any information and help this community has to offer. I'm normally more of a Paleo collector/diver but fate landed this in my lap and now i'm stumped. I have had it verified to be Copal by a gemologist. It is 32" long 24" wide and 10" at the thickest point. It weights 61 Kilograms. It appears to have formed from a single tree as its color is uniform through out the piece. I discovered it on a Beach in South Carolina a few days after Hurricane Irma blew through. I have tried museums for help and they just say "wow that is big" and want it donated for free, not much help there. Anyone else I have talked to tells me it's so rare that they cannot even guess at a value. Ebay is no help since all copal on there are small pieces sold for jewelry. The largest piece I have found for sale is 3 pounds... Not much to compare to. I would REALLY appreciate any help in determining even a ballpark value and searching for a museum interested in holding it as a loaned piece. I am also curious about taking it to the Tucson Gem show, for display or sale. Thank you.

I bought this a few years back and I was wondering if it was amber, copal or plastic. It was labeled as Baltic Amber and it has a spider inclusion in it. Are there any tests I can do to it that are pretty reliable and will not ruin it. I put it in salt water and it sunk to the bottom. Not sure if the mixture was correct. I have a saltwater fish tank and I used water from it for the test because it is the same mixture as ocean water. Thanks for any help.

I have been doing some recent work with Columbian Amber/Copal and thought I would throw this out for a general discussion. It is fun, if nothing else Most of my life I have believed that there is no difference between Copal and Amber. I know chemically there is no difference between the two. Amber/Copal from the same plant from different time periods, even millions of years apart are identical. Fossil resin's molecular make-up is mostly carbon and hydrogen atoms that form hexagonal rings. Molecular bonding between the rings increases over time (called polymerization, as in modern epoxy resins), and the tacky resin becomes hard. For all practical purposes, the hardened resin is a "plastic". Exactly when the resin becomes amber/copal, or a fossil, is not definable by any scientific criteria. I would like to see if others have the same thoughts. I am also attaching a picture of the best piece in my collection. "Best" meaning my favorite. This is one of my favorite articles. The following is by Dr. Robert E. Woodruff Emeritus Taxonomist, Florida State Collection of Arthropods Resins are produced by many trees and other plants; Frankincense of the Bible is one of these. Peach and Cherry trees produce resins that children often use as chewing gum. No botanist or paleontologist knows when resins were first produced, but we know it was probably more than 100 million years ago. They are produced to heal wounds, just as our blood coagulates to seal injuries. There is no doubt that these resins have been produced continuously since they first occured. Because they are affected little by the elements, resins are similar to their original form. Only a few volatile oils are eliminated by time and burial (e.g., in marine sediments that are 3000 ft. elevation now). We use Canadian Balsam as the most permanent sealant for cover slips on microscope slides. Unfortunately, no one can presently date these resins by any definitive tests. Because they have been continuously produced, there are no drastic changes from one geological period to another. We can infer age, if we know the age of a sedimentary deposit in which they are found (this would be a minimum, because older material could have been redeposited). There are those (including several scientists) that insist that the word amber must be reserved for certain age resins. With such a continuous resin production, and no clear dating, it could all be called amber. It is a semantic argument, & those who sell Baltic, Dominican, & Mexican "amber" do not want to use the term for any that might be more recent. Obviously a commercial bias is present. They prefer to use the term "copal". Strictly speaking, the Aztec word "copal" is used for all resins! They do not distinguish the Miocene deposits from southern Mexico from the recent resin collected for incense today. Therefore it should not be redefined to fit some new arbitrary definition based on age. It is considered lower class only because of these commercial interests. We have Cretaceous amber (at least 65 million years old) and much Oligocene & Miocene amber, as well as Pliocene (Africa), and many others. We have no dates or specific geological information on Colombian amber. Because of it's color and hardness, we believe it may be Pliocene or Pleistocene (as is some of the Dominican amber from Cotui). Studies underway may clarify the deposits, but evidence suggests that there may be varying geological formations & ages. Mankind (depending on the anthropologist's definition thereof) has been on earth only 3-5 million years. Certainly the Olduvai specimens are fossils (both men & animals) and extremely valuable for study of human evolution. If we assume the Colombian amber is this recent, it still has extremely important value for those studying the fossils. Studies of biodiversity, biogeography, ecology, and evolution, all benefit from the scientific description of these amber fossils. Age is relative, the old man said, but old is not necessarily better. To call the Colombian material anything other than amber is a misnomer! Logically, we should just call everything "resin", with qualifying adjectives of origin or geological formation. I doubt that this would be acceptable to most "amber" dealers!

I really want to collect mammal fossil. i can trade basilosaurus fossil, trilobite, nice copals, korean plant fossils and others. i want mammal skull fossil, jaw bone, and bone(can be from anyone). if you want to trade, send PM to me. thanks + l'm from South Korea. +i attached some my fossils pictures.

i bought this piece a while ago, it was listed as "amber" but is actually copal. there are a lot of insects in the piece including an ant, some weird fly-like insects, another weird insect, some kind of roach, etc. it was quite hard, and was about NZ$7. i don't know what kind of copal it is and i am hoping someone may be able to shed some light on this.

today i found a virgin copal site, A.K.A i found another creek in the forest. this creek in particular was more ideal than others i had hunted in before because is had eroded more steeply. what i mean is that the creek bank was quite sheer in some places, which is perfect for finding kauri copal because your digging is done for you. this particular piece was spotted while i was getting into the creek to look for kauri copal, i saw it and gave it a slight kick with my gumboot (wellingtons for the non kiwis out there) and saw the copal underneath. after a good heave and tug to get it out of the mud it came free and i was astonished to see, after i had cleaned it off in the creek, that it had a piece of kauri bark attached to it, and on closer inspection, it also has a knot-like bark injury preserved too. i am going to be polishing off the copal in the weeks to come and when i am finally done with the sanding and polishing, i will post pictures too. <---- bark injury, this is on the inside of the bark. <---- outside of bark that is covered in the resin that seeped out of it thousands of years ago.

Ok, so a few of you have heard me rambling on about that Kauri gum i found a while ago but up until now i haven't got around to giving you pictures. well, here is a picture of a polished piece of the stuff. ~90% of the lump we found was milky and mostly opaque but there was a large pocket of clearer copal in one part, the piece in the picture is a piece of that pocket. i then polished it up with Brasso and a rag, and now it shines beautifully. me, and occasionally my friends, will be hunting for some more of the copal so you can expect to see more pictures in future. Insects, you ask? as of yet, i have not looked at it under the microscope.