How Do You Measure Your Teeth?

[Auspex]

If the shark tooth shape is a generalized triangle, slant height is c in a^2 + b^2 = c^2. So slant height really is a hybrid of height and width, taking both into account and giving a fair representation of overall "tooth size". So I consider it a pretty good quick comparitive measurement technique.

No argument from me that slant is a convenient way to compare tooth sizes; it's indispensable!

My thought was about constructing a biometric database for the purpose of deeper study and ID.

[tracer]

"My thought was about constructing a biometric database for the purpose of deeper study and ID."

The interesting thing about evolving technology is that, if someone wants to, there will eventually be a software program where you can scan tooth photos and the program will id the tooth using data plotted from a very high number of data points on known teeth. at that point a complex algorithm will be id'ing the teeth using such a large and complex data set that debate on it's accuracy won't really be very practical.

and a side benefit to the id of the teeth will be measurement of the teeth - which in my mind ought to be volumetric. you match your socks by color, but i go by thickness...

[non-remanié]

oh and the accuracy would even get better when we all can create 3-d picture scans. pop the tooth in a box like your microwave and bingo we have a 3-d model on the 'puter. now that would be sweet!

"My thought was about constructing a biometric database for the purpose of deeper study and ID."

The interesting thing about evolving technology is that, if someone wants to, there will eventually be a software program where you can scan tooth photos and the program will id the tooth using data plotted from a very high number of data points on known teeth. at that point a complex algorithm will be id'ing the teeth using such a large and complex data set that debate on it's accuracy won't really be very practical.

and a side benefit to the id of the teeth will be measurement of the teeth - which in my mind ought to be volumetric. you match your socks by color, but i go by thickness...

[eddie]

A GW measuring 2.99" is less desirable than one at 3.01", although I'd be happy with either.

Not to start any controversy, since this true. But I've never understood it. Why does a tooth

become so much more/less valuable just because of an arbitrary notch on a ruler? (This isn't directed

at anyone in particular, just a general question for all.) What about those who use the metric system rather

than inches?

Thanks,

Eddie

[Tracer Jr.]

Not to start any controversy, since this true. But I've never understood it. Why does a tooth

become so much more/less valuable just because of an arbitrary notch on a ruler? (This isn't directed

at anyone in particular, just a general question for all.) What about those who use the metric system rather

than inches?

Thanks,

Eddie

unfortunately, the simply answer is ego. keeping score. mine's longer than yours. i win. many humans will die for this concept, or spend everything they own. i try to keep perspective and not spend money or cause myself problems trying to prove i'm better than anyone, but it's difficult. it's a natural brainwarp, but i continually try to remind myself that if you're wearing hollister, and i'm wearing wal-mart special, then i win.

OOPS! i'm on tj's computer doing something and went into the forum, not realizing it was logged on as him. tracer did this post, not tj. sorry son, didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

tracer

[Auspex]

Not to start any controversy, since this true. But I've never understood it. Why does a tooth

become so much more/less valuable just because of an arbitrary notch on a ruler? (This isn't directed

at anyone in particular, just a general question for all.) What about those who use the metric system rather

than inches?

Thanks,

Eddie

Rarity; the bigger they get, the rarer they are. Some of the nicer teeth are now graded for condition much the way rare coins are; throw in size (just like diamonds), and prices can go up exponentially at the top 10% for criteria that are imperceptable to the average joe.

[eddie]

Rarity; the bigger they get, the rarer they are. Some of the nicer teeth are now graded for condition much the way rare coins are; throw in size (just like diamonds), and prices can go up exponentially at the top 10% for criteria that are imperceptable to the average joe.

Sorry guys, let me rephrase the question since I was not clear. The difference in value between a 2.9" mako and a

2.96" mako is virtually nil. The difference in value between a 2.964392" and a 3.028491" is much larger, simply because it crossed some arbitrary threshold on the ruler. I understand the larger the tooth the more valuable it is; it's these magical jumps in value due to the "magic measurement" that make no sense to me. Personally, I value a nice 5.98" meg tooth as much as a 6.02" meg tooth.

Thanks,

Eddie

[tracer]

i answered the question. people are simplistic in creating "yardsticks" whereby they measure how cool anything is. they "round" to numbers in their head. 3" is the threshhold in the case you mentioned. a nice round number that doesn't sound anal when you throw it out. i've got a 3" tooth, you don't, i win. now if my tooth is bigger than the milestone, i'll start throwing in the hundredths to beat out the others who also have 3" teeth.

of course the grading continuums mentioned by auspex for rare coins and now teeth are also created by those marketing the things as another means of achieving supremacy - having more money than others.

i've perhaps been a tad too cynical in the way i feel about these matters, in that attempting to elevate social status does serve a useful purpose. it arguably helps one get the finer mates and improve the bloodline.

except if you're cratering the economy or perpetuating giant wars.

the joneses

[Auspex]

...The difference in value between a 2.9" mako and a 2.96" mako is virtually nil. The difference in value between a 2.964392" and a 3.028491" is much larger, simply because it crossed some arbitrary threshold on the ruler....

For a Mako, 3" is a magic number by consensus of the collecting community. It's a round number (which has more appeal because it sounds less random) that is near the top of the rarity scale for the species.

...Personally, I value a nice 5.98" meg tooth as much as a 6.02" meg tooth.

Good on ya'! A jaw-dropper is a jaw dropper. The 6" magic threshold can still have a very positive influence on a collector if it establishes a goal without diminishing the joy of already having one that is "only" 5.75".

[Guest bmorefossil]

Sorry guys, let me rephrase the question since I was not clear. The difference in value between a 2.9" mako and a

2.96" mako is virtually nil. The difference in value between a 2.964392" and a 3.028491" is much larger, simply because it crossed some arbitrary threshold on the ruler. I understand the larger the tooth the more valuable it is; it's these magical jumps in value due to the "magic measurement" that make no sense to me. Personally, I value a nice 5.98" meg tooth as much as a 6.02" meg tooth.

Thanks,

Eddie

i agree with the increase in value due to size, but as you said it comes to a point where the value comes down to condition, if I had a 5.98" meg and a 6.02" meg the only difference I would really see with the tooth would be the condition.

[eddie]

i agree with the increase in value due to size, but as you said it comes to a point where the value comes down to condition, if I had a 5.98" meg and a 6.02" meg the only difference I would really see with the tooth would be the condition.

Exactly. Given all else (quality, color, location) is equal, unless there is evidence (which there isn't) that:

1) A 6.02" meg is much more rare than a 5.98" meg (or a 3.02" mako is much more rare than a 2.98" mako_

2) A 5.98" is not much rarer than a 5.94" meg (or a 2.98" mako is not much rarer than a 2.94" mako)

then these "magic thresholds" are not based on anything logical. The change in value should be

directly proportional to the change in size (ie, linear relationship.)

Thanks,

Eddie

[Guest bmorefossil]

Exactly. Given all else (quality, color, location) is equal, unless there is evidence (which there isn't) that:

ok well now that we all understand shark teeth lol, what would anyone say about croc teeth, I have seen 2" croc teeth become 2.5" just by measring the outside curve of the tooth.

[Northern Sharks]

"Should" is the magic word there. There "should" not be such a jump in price over a difference of 0.02" , but as a seller/buyer, you know that there is, and it's pretty much based on bragging rights. Great White teeth don't often get over 3", so Mr.X's tooth at 3.01" has got to be much rarer and therefore more valuable than Mr. Y's at 2.99". Why? It doesn't matter because you can't change it. Personally, I'd rather pay a lot less and get the smaller tooth, all else being equal, but in the back of my mind, I probably would like to say that I had a true 3+ inch GW instead of one a hair under, but that's just me. By the way, my largest GW is 2.925, so if anyone wants to part with one over 3" and NOT charge much more than what I paid for mine, I'm listening

[Guest bmorefossil]

ha, yea im sure you would be i think that the 3" mako/gw is over rated, you look at some members on the forum and they find two 3" makos in a trip or some people have makos around 3 1/2". If i can save a ton of money on a tooth that is 2 15/16" and not 3" i would do it.

[Auspex]

If the quality is the same;

Should three 2" Megs cost the same as one 6"?

Would you trade a pound of 3" Makos for a pound of 1" makos?

With shark's teeth, desire is measured by the thousandths of an inch.

[Guest bmorefossil]

If the quality is the same;

Should three 2" Megs cost the same as one 6"?

Would you trade a pound of 3" Makos for a pound of 1" makos?

With shark's teeth, desire is measured by the thousandths of an inch.

But its overrated, if i was doing the selling i would be really happy.

[eddie]

If the quality is the same;

Should three 2" Megs cost the same as one 6"?

Would you trade a pound of 3" Makos for a pound of 1" makos?

With shark's teeth, desire is measured by the thousandths of an inch.

These questions don't address what I am saying. I'm not arguing that a tooth's value

should not be based on size. (While I do think that concept has it's flaws in certain cases, that's a different

issue.)

Thanks,

Eddie

[eddie]

"Should" is the magic word there. There "should" not be such a jump in price over a difference of 0.02" , but as a seller/buyer, you know that there is, and it's pretty much based on bragging rights. Great White teeth don't often get over 3", so Mr.X's tooth at 3.01" has got to be much rarer and therefore more valuable than Mr. Y's at 2.99". Why? It doesn't matter because you can't change it. Personally, I'd rather pay a lot less and get the smaller tooth, all else being equal, but in the back of my mind, I probably would like to say that I had a true 3+ inch GW instead of one a hair under, but that's just me. By the way, my largest GW is 2.925, so if anyone wants to part with one over 3" and NOT charge much more than what I paid for mine, I'm listening

I'm not trying to change anything, I'm just pointing out the lack of logic behind these arbitrary "magic marks."

Seems like you agree with me, but I'm not sure.

Also, please don't assume I am advocating 3"+ teeth should be priced LESS than they are typically priced. Maybe the 2.98" teeth should be valued HIGHER.

Thanks,

Eddie

[Guest bmorefossil]

Also, please don't assume I am advocating 3"+ teeth should be priced LESS than they are typically priced. Maybe the 2.98" teeth should be valued HIGHER.

Thanks,

Eddie

hey if I'm getting basicly the same tooth for alot less money then ill just stick with the 2.98" teeth, I wouldnt mind having a case of 2.98" teeth for the same price of a few 3" teeth.

lol I deleted most of what i was going to say and now I cant remember grrrrr

[non-remanié]

Hmmmm. Of course its an imaginary line at 3"... But I would argue that it is essentially true that 3" makos or gws are much more rare than 2.98" for the mere fact that the 3" ones are usually kept in collections for longer periods. This means the supply is much less than 2.98" makos, making them worth much more when they are for sale. Its a self fulfilling prphecy of sorts. We all want a 3" mako so that makes them more hard to come by. This doesnt mean that they really are that much more uncommon if looking at the fossil record as a whole. Its just the nature of the beast.

Exactly. Given all else (quality, color, location) is equal, unless there is evidence (which there isn't) that:

1) A 6.02" meg is much more rare than a 5.98" meg (or a 3.02" mako is much more rare than a 2.98" mako_

2) A 5.98" is not much rarer than a 5.94" meg (or a 2.98" mako is not much rarer than a 2.94" mako)

then these "magic thresholds" are not based on anything logical. The change in value should be

directly proportional to the change in size (ie, linear relationship.)

Thanks,

Eddie

[Auspex]

Hmmmm. Of course its an imaginary line at 3"... But I would argue that it is essentially true that 3" makos or gws are much more rare than 2.98" for the mere fact that the 3" ones are usually kept in collections for longer periods. This means the supply is much less than 2.98" makos, making them worth much more when they are for sale. Its a self fulfilling prphecy of sorts. We all want a 3" mako so that makes them more hard to come by. This doesnt mean that they really are that much more uncommon if looking at the fossil record as a whole. Its just the nature of the beast.

Excellent observation!

[Guest bmorefossil]

Hmmmm. Of course its an imaginary line at 3"... But I would argue that it is essentially true that 3" makos or gws are much more rare than 2.98" for the mere fact that the 3" ones are usually kept in collections for longer periods. This means the supply is much less than 2.98" makos, making them worth much more when they are for sale. Its a self fulfilling prphecy of sorts. We all want a 3" mako so that makes them more hard to come by. This doesnt mean that they really are that much more uncommon if looking at the fossil record as a whole. Its just the nature of the beast.

'

look its not that hard to find a 3" mako online, but I think that if your looking for a 3" mako under a certain price then you might be in trouble.