JohnJ Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Hi Ed, I had a close look at that and I still don't see any clear layering. I see parallel lines in places but those look like scratches in the rock to me, not layers. Considering that whole area is full of glacial till that would make a lot of sense. Agreed. The brighter photo in post 5 shows striations on the surface which are consistent with glacial "polishing". The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_ed Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Thanks. That gravel was located in eastern central Texas - very little if any volcanic rock shown. No obsidian. Cherts, jaspers, other sedimentary rocks and quartz of varying forms...plus the partial mammoth tooth. It's interesting how we like to relate isolated rocks to those found in our local areas. Regarding the subject rock of this topic, mickiver says it was found in eastern South Dakota. So, it is most likely from a Pleistocene glacial deposit and would have been subjected to a lot of erosive forces no matter it's true composition. Studying the last 3 photos, I'm not seeing any of the "layering" referenced in earlier posts...not that it isn't - I just don't see it. What I think I can see in those images are subtle hints of circular conchodial fractures across the surface. In a few areas, it appears that a different lighter mineral is exposed on the surface as irregular shapes. Maybe mickiver can provide additional info. This is one of those interesting finds that allows teaching and learning for many who surf this forum. Sorry.. i thought the black rock in the upper left was obsidian at a glance.. anyway that shows what I know .. I have always referred to agate and jasper as volcanic rocks for some reason... should be more careful here .. Sorry Only more silly question.. how do you explain the circular conchodial fractures on one side and no such thing around the larger divot? Thanks Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 No worries, Ed. I'm no expert either...just learning along with everyone else. Here is an enlarged view of mickiver's stone. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkpantherbeekeeper Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 To catch up with answers: When I found it, it had a small amount of calcium "slag" on it that I removed. It made me think it had to be very old, and in a wet environment at some point. Does this have any bearing on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Soapstone in most of it's forms can be scratched with your fingernail, hardness ranges from MOHS 1.0 (talc) to about 5.0 (counter tops) if it cant be scratched with a knife (5.5) it is not soapstone. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"_ Carl Sagen No trees were killed in this posting......however, many innocent electrons were diverted from where they originally intended to go. " I think, therefore I collect fossils." _ Me "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."__S. Holmes "can't we all just get along?" Jack Nicholson from Mars Attacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 I wonder why he hasn't done a scratch test? Maybe he went on vacation.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_ed Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 I wonder why he hasn't done a scratch test? Maybe he went on vacation.... Looks like a "your guess is as good as mine" situation without a scratch test and estimate of hardness. When I was about seven years old my father found a mistery stone in our backyard which at one time not long before that was an Indian village of sorts. The evidence of a crude steam bath was still there by the creek.. anyway the mystery rock turned out to be star saphire about the size of a golf ball or a little smaller. Dad took it to a local rock shop to get some jewellery made of it for Mom and he never saw it again. It got lost. But that was either glacial drift or an Indian trade item.. anyway it was a long way from home wherever that was. I have never seen anything that beautiful in the 63 years that I have been playing around with rocks since then. On occasion I would sneak into his bedroom where he kept it and pick it up and look at it and no matter how many times I looked at it I was always amazed with the beauty it portrayed. He never knew what it was until he took it to the rock shop and asked them to make some jewellery out of it.. They tried to buy it but it was kind of a sentimental thing to him for some reason. This rock of Mckivers could have been carried around for centuries by natives and used as a trade item or good luck... who knows. Or maybe it was just polished by nature as some have suggested. Nice to dream of what it could be. Cheers Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Anyhew, it's still just a rock. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"_ Carl Sagen No trees were killed in this posting......however, many innocent electrons were diverted from where they originally intended to go. " I think, therefore I collect fossils." _ Me "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."__S. Holmes "can't we all just get along?" Jack Nicholson from Mars Attacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwcounts Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 The chance that this is a 3.5 centimeter, extremely well-preserved fossil pearl that was just picked up out of a backyard are slim to none, IMO. Such a thing would be very rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelhead9 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Colonial era marble. I have some somewhere and will look to find and photograph them. Still Life Fossils Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Colonial era marble. I have some somewhere and will look to find and photograph them. No. Not nearly spherical enough. Goodness... it's amazing how much random speculation can be generated by a small, roughly round black rock with a ding out of it, despite the fact that we still don't have full description of it geological properties. Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batty Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 It has certainly peaked a lot of interest lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Maybe it's an Aztec 8-ball used by a hitherto unknown tribe of midgets and the '8' has been worn off. It looks very like the one in this picture (only a bit smaller): Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 ...how do you explain the circular conchodial fractures on one side and no such thing around the larger divot? ... The former could be of much more recent origin, where the latter is older and has been subjected to much more tumbling. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Maybe it's an Aztec 8-ball used by a hitherto unknown tribe of midgets and the '8' has been worn off. It looks very like the one in this picture (only a bit smaller): OR Possibly a ball from an Aztec pin-ball game Link Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Speculation can be fun However, sooner or later, we will conclude even the best pictures will probably not result in a positive identification of this artifact. Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_ed Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 The former could be of much more recent origin, where the latter is older and has been subjected to much more tumbling. I like the first part of your reply better ..."could be" is ok but you then say 'the latter is older and has been subject to much more tumbling".. You are obviously grasping at straws and I am not saying that is a bad thing... but it assures me that you don't know that the divot is a chip or an impression and therefore it could be an impression. Here is an embossed image of the picture with the divot. Note that there are little to no sharp marks in the bottom of the divot. The bottom of the divot has no cracks or splits from the impact that would have to have happened to make that kind of a dent in that rock. My guess is that the divot is an impression and that the specimen is a river polished concretion .. and you know I am usually wrong. Your replies are usually air tight to novices like me... You aren't swaying my opinion on this one so far.. I am just guessing like you are.. but I feel confident in my guess so far. Cheers Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_ed Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 This is an embossed picture of the other side. This is the sort of debate that makes people learn.. sometimes you have to be wrong to learn...me anyway. Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 I like the first part of your reply better ..."could be" is ok but you then say 'the latter is older and has been subject to much more tumbling".. You are obviously grasping at straws and I am not saying that is a bad thing... This is a clearer way to say what I meant: "The former could be of much more recent origin, where the latter is could be older and has been subjected to much more tumbling." I am proposing what is to me the simplest explanation for the difference between the dent and the conchoidal features, regardless of the dent's origin as an impression, chip, or differential erosion of a 'soft spot'. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 .... .... Just sayin' ,.... Regards, Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 .... .... "As you can see, my young apprentice, your fossil-friends have failed. Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Speculation can be fun However, sooner or later, we will conclude even the best pictures will probably not result in a positive identification of this artifact. .... .... "As you can see, my young apprentice, your fossil-friends have failed. Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station!" I stand corrected !! Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_ed Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 This is a clearer way to say what I meant: "The former could be of much more recent origin, where the latter is could be older and has been subjected to much more tumbling." I am proposing what is to me the simplest explanation for the difference between the dent and the conchoidal features, regardless of the dent's origin as an impression, chip, or differential erosion of a 'soft spot'. fair enough It is all good.. I must have something better to do than argue about a dent in a rock. Cheers Ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 OMG! the Death Star!!, I think it's a micrometeorite impact crater. (Still a rock) "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"_ Carl Sagen No trees were killed in this posting......however, many innocent electrons were diverted from where they originally intended to go. " I think, therefore I collect fossils." _ Me "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."__S. Holmes "can't we all just get along?" Jack Nicholson from Mars Attacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgrilusHunter Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Hi Ed, Here is your Fraser rock from earlier, the one with the confirmed chip, next to the unknown. I think they look pretty close. "They ... savoured the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of ordinary things." -- Terry Pratchett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.