What fossils should be in every collector’s collection?

[ynot]

11 minutes ago, caldigger said:

Its usually the other way around for me.

I will be all excited and giddy about something I found and the reaction I get from other non fossil collectors is a bored "that's cool" with a ho- hum chaser. 

I get that reaction a lot also.

That's what makes the "wow" factor fossils so nice.

[Darktooth]

I would be nice to cross the mammoth  tooth off my list when I go to Florida in March!

[caldigger]

9 minutes ago, Darktooth said:

I would be nice to cross the mammoth  tooth off my list when I go to Florida in March!

I sell maps that will tell you exactly where they are...and what floor of the museum they are in. 

 

Good luck with the quest, we will want pictures if you are successful.

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

29 minutes ago, caldigger said:

Its usually the other way around for me.

I will be all excited and giddy about something I found and the reaction I get from other non fossil collectors is a bored "that's cool" with a ho- hum chaser. 

Don’t worry, we all like seeing your finds!

[FranzBernhard]

There are many questions to this question:

- Would you like to document the evolution of life in your own collection? A special time, a special facies? Everything?

- Are you going for showy specimens only?

- What are your space restrictions?

- Would you like to specialize in a special geographic area?

- Are you more of a hunter or more of a buyer?

And many more.

Sure there are some classic extinct(!) fossil groups: Trilos, Ammos and Dinos, I think.

 

I for myself have zero desire to buy or exchange anything, I don´t even want something given to me. I exclusively self collect in my area. Sure, some Styrian Triassic ammos would be cool, but I have no desire to buy one. Maybe in the future, I will have opportunities to prospect for them myself. And if not, its also no problem.

 

Franz Bernhard

[DPS Ammonite]

I would love to have a reproduction of this Cretaceous rock, the Delk Print, that was supposedly found in Glen Rose, Texas and now on display at a museum there. It would be quite the conversation piece.

 

See: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm

 

 

 

Every collection should have a real dinosaur footprint too. However, my memories of the Dinosaur Valley State Park in Glen Rose, Texas are much more impressive than owning one print. Everyone should see the park. This paper gives a taste of what your are missing: 

“Dinosaur Tracksites of the Paluxy River Valley (Glen Rose Formation, Lower Cretaceous), Dinosaur Valley State Park, Somervell County, Texas” by Farlow et al.

 

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/Farlow et al 2012 Paluxy River tracksites.pdf

[Manticocerasman]

2 hours ago, FranzBernhard said:

There are many questions to this question:

- Would you like to document the evolution of life in your own collection? A special time, a special facies? Everything?

- Are you going for showy specimens only?

- What are your space restrictions?

- Would you like to specialize in a special geographic area?

- Are you more of a hunter or more of a buyer?

And many more.

Sure there are some classic extinct(!) fossil groups: Trilos, Ammos and Dinos, I think.

 

I for myself have zero desire to buy or exchange anything, I don´t even want something given to me. I exclusively self collect in my area. Sure, some Styrian Triassic ammos would be cool, but I have no desire to buy one. Maybe in the future, I will have opportunities to prospect for them myself. And if not, its also no problem.

 

Franz Bernhard

 

I agree, It depends on what kind of collector you are.

I try to specialize in a few locations and specific facies. so my collection should contain representative fossils from thos locations and facies.

[daves64]

5 hours ago, caldigger said:

Bummer!  I only have a four humper, guess I'll just have to throw it out and set my sights for a 5.

I'll take it! I don't have any mastodon teeth. 

[Bobby Rico]

I have to go with this iconic fossil that reminds me of so many images of prehistoric landscapes I pondered over as a kid.

 

Calamites or giant horsetail.

[Kane]

The fossils one is seeking to collect, cherish, study, and display -- obtained by whatever legal means, be that purchased, collected, traded, gifted, or any mixture of the four.

 

The inherent danger of such questions of which fossils "ought" to be in a collection to make it a bona fide collection risks standardizing collecting behaviour and collections. It is almost akin to wanting to "belong" to the middle class by acquiring the standard objects (the suburban press-board house on a street named after the forest that was bulldozed to create the subdivision, the SUV, the specific decor, the patio with BBQ and particular lawn chairs, etc.). In this way, the objects are made to carry the signifiers of status -- in this case, having a fossil collection that signifies one as a fossil collector. Such a thing cleaves too closely to the logic of consumer culture and mass produced objects that are designed as a kind of password to a particular expression of status. It may also open the door to a kind of pecking order of collectors where certain fossils are deemed necessary conditions to belong to that class or set. 

 

To say "each collection should have x, y, z in order to be considered a serious or good collection" is short-sighted and sadly may cause others to feel that their collections are deficient without having examples of x, y, z in their collection. Besides, our individual interests that choose to specialize in particular fossils is not something that should or can be so easily replicated or applied uniformly to all collectors. I do not need dinosaur tracks or meg teeth in my collection as I am not as interested in those, whereas another may not be as chuffed with trilobites or brachs. 

 

In short, "vive la difference!" and abandon the "ought" in favour of the affordances that come with what one is interested in acquiring. As opposed to collecting cars, baseball cards, or any other mass produced good, fossil collecting is a far different animal. 

[daves64]

First & foremost though.. you need a fossil. Doesn't matter what it is really, as long as you have one to start a collection with. From there, you have all of pre-history to collect from. Just my opinion. 

[Bobby Rico]

46 minutes ago, Kane said:

It is almost akin to wanting to "belong" to the middle class by acquiring the standard objects

Hi Kane I don’t this is quite right maybe I have miss read the question or your answer been so dyslexic . I think he is asking us the collectors what we feel is a classic fossil to own . By asking the forum which has a wild verity of members from all walks of life the answers can’t add up to just one social standing like middle class. My choice was under £10 in value .Hope I have not caused any offence my friend. 

All the best Bobby 

[DPS Ammonite]

Collect the fossils that are worthy of inclusion in a scientific paper because they are new or unusual. The journey to identify them or find an expert to identify them will lead in many directions. You will learn a lot about a little and sometimes a lot about many unrelated things. Education is your reward. The ultimate goal is to have them leave your collection and enter the collection of an institution. Sponge experts where are you?

[TyBoy]

What should be in every collectors collection?  Whatever he enjoys collecting....its ridiculous to think there should be standard items that need to be in a fossil collection.   Everyone is turned on by something different so thats what should be in their fossil collection.

[Bobby Rico]

13 minutes ago, TyBoy said:

What should be in every collectors collection? 

Where did he ask that question?

[Kane]

6 minutes ago, Bobby Rico said:

Hi Kane I don’t this is quite right maybe I have miss read the question or your answer been so dyslexic . I think he is asking us the collectors what we feel is a classic fossil to own . By asking the forum which has a wild verity of members from all walks of life the answers can’t add up to just one social standing like middle class. My choice was under £10 in value . Hope I have not caused any offence my friend. 

All the best Bobby 

Never an offence, my friend.  But perhaps we might pause on this word of "classic" to what it denotes, and what or whom sets that as it seems to imply a kind of standardization (or a form of consensus, which may be a softer version of standardization  ). Of course, the very word "classic" is a tricky one to define (or, worse, that horrid marketing term "instant classic" ). Commonly, when that word is invoked it sets a kind of bar based on deep cultural and historical context that favours the privileged few. Transposed to something like, say, literature, those that are not considered "classics" (and thus excluded from the canon and curriculum) were deemed lesser works or invisible. This created all sorts of problems when it came to authorial voices that were not deemed acceptable to Westernized tastes (or had to be "assimilated" somehow) or those marginalized. Visual art and music were among the first to question the binary of classic versus non-classic, and literature was not long in following suit. In visual art, Romanticism might have been the first step in weaning off from the neoclassical style that somewhat functions as a kind of Western cultural "default." But now I'm in the weeds!  

 

My point was not to get hung up on the "must-haves" as might be recognized by a larger community, and that any must-haves is best determined independently. That may have been the intention of the OP, but thought it good to mention.  

[TyBoy]

3 minutes ago, Bobby Rico said:

Where did he ask that question?

Thats the headline of this topic

What fossils should be in every collector’s collection?

[Bobby Rico]

11 hours ago, UtahFossilHunter said:

What do you guys consider to be the collector’s classics?

This is the question I answered.  

[Yoda]

For me, nothing says prehistoric more than a Trilobite

They are easy to get hold of, basic ones not too expensive. Not sure how easy they are to find?

But I would imagine most collectors have had one in their collection at some point? 

[TyBoy]

5 minutes ago, Bobby Rico said:

This is the question I answered.  

My response is the same to that question.  Classics?  Thats a label one puts on something that they feel important.  Its different for everyone so any fossil can be considered a classic depending on how the collector feels about it.

[DPS Ammonite]

I think that both Bobby and Kane gave reasonable answers to the original questions (more than one question was asked) what are some classic fossils and what fossil should be in everyone’s collection. Classic fossils include dinosaur prints, shark teeth etc. Fossils that you like should be in everyone’s collections.

[Bobby Rico]

I feel this question was not meant to have so many loaded replies but  and more innocent in its nature . 

[TyBoy]

5 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said:

. Classic fossils include dinosaur prints, shark teeth etc. Fossils that you like should be in everyone’s collections.

Correct, Thats your opinion 

[Bobby Rico]

I feel in this case the word “classic “ means recognized and established though a collective  consciousness for example a meg tooth is an classic fossil but you don’t have to have to  have one to be a fossil collector or to be proud of your fossil collection. I feel a “classic” fossil is not determined by one collector but by the many. 

I don’t feel I can reply to this thread any more sorry. 

[Tidgy's Dad]

22 minutes ago, Bobby Rico said:

I feel this question was not meant to have so many loaded replies but  and more innocent in its nature . 

I agree. 

It's just a bit of fun, no one was suggesting you must have a, b or c or else you're not a true collector. 

And I just thought of another one that should be in every collection.

A Moroccan fake.