What fossils should be in every collector’s collection?

[Tidgy's Dad]

Oh, and a rock that looks like an egg. 

[daves64]

15 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

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

A Moroccan fake.

Does this mean you're sending one to each of us that don't have one? 

[Tidgy's Dad]

23 minutes ago, daves64 said:

Does this mean you're sending one to each of us that don't have one? 

I think there are plenty in the USA already. 

There'll be several thousand at Tucson soon, for example. 

[Abstraktum]

Everybody should have a fully grown T-Rex skeleton (no restoration, no fabrication, 100 % of all bones). Because how awesome can it be to have a T-Rex

 

Don't get to serious on this topic. Collect what you love and enjoy your fossils (as long as you get your hands on a T-Rex ).

[paulyb135]

An innocent fun topic seems to have taken a turn for the worst with misinterpretations.

 

Everyone has different collections and everyone likes different things.

 

For me as a Dino tooth collector a classic for other Dino teeth collectors I would say is a rex tooth but of course this answer differs to someone who doesn’t collect teeth

 

 

[Wrangellian]

22 hours ago, UtahFossilHunter said:

I recently posted my piece of amber with a small gnat relative encased inside in the recognizing fake fossils subforum. In that thread @caldigger and I were talking about how an insect in amber is a staple for any fossil collection. That got me thinking about what other fossils would be good inexpensive (or expensive, I don’t judge) fossils that are also must-haves of collectors. Of course, being from the West, I thought about Knightia eocaena and Elrathia kingii.  What do you guys consider to be the collector’s classics?

Wasn't it me that said that in the other thread? although now I'm not sure I should have owned up to it. Who knew that such an innocent topic for conversation could turn so confrontational and be put down as wrong-headed (in so many words). Sign of the times, I guess.

[Kane]

I'll shoulder the blame for the "turn" in this conversation, but it was not confrontational. To question assumptions (made in language, or otherwise) is simply a potentially healthy expression of exercising our critical faculties, and also potentially generative of discussion.

[5 Humper]

Now for a real answer from me.  Hope no one minded my initial humor.  This is a really good topic for discussion.  Fossils that any/every fossil steward should have, in my opinion, most certainly should include as many self-found fossils as possible (what Herb said), because that would represent scores of fine memories and hands-on learning experiences for the collector.  

 

For the North American collector (yet applicable anywhere), a collection should include comparative sets of homologous bones within taxonomic units so that the similarities and differences between closely related and distantly related species are apparent in hand for the collector. We don't just collect just to have something.  It's about learning.  Fossils are amazing to me as comparative sets between closely related species because this allows for pondering of evolutionary history in ways that having only a single specimen from a single species from a single taxonomic unit cannot.   

 

I also find it rewarding and instructional to possess bones and skulls of body parts (i.e. shells) from extant organisms alongside my fossils so that I can see the relationship between the extinct and the extant.  For example, I have a complete set of Canid skulls from N. America (among other sets).  Having them allows me to better ID, through comparison, any fossil Canid material I may come across, and see how ancient Canids differ from extant ones.   I love putting some of my dire wolf teeth right up next to my extant gray wolf jaws and admiring the robustness of Canis dirus in comparison to C. lupus. Evolution on display. 

 

Any fossil comparative sets can display the story of evolution, but some great, WOW factor, fossil bone or teeth sets to possess, which we all seem to crave, include: mammoth tooth next to a mastodon tooth, meg tooth next to a fossil great white (C. carcharias) tooth, ammonite next to an extant nautiloid, Holmesina scutes right up next to modern nine-banded armadillo scutes (everyone goes WOW at the size difference), Giant ground sloth teeth right up next to an extant sloth tooth (another WOW),  giant beaver teeth up next to extant beaver teeth (WOW again) and so on and so forth....

 

More bigtime finds one should have or experience:  any complete dino bone or tooth.  Gotta have something "dinosaur" in the collection!  Any complete skeleton of any extinct animal.  Complete Ecphora.  Complete teeth or jaws of your favorite species. Something a BILLION years old (WOW)--stromatolite? Something from major famous localities of your choice. 

 

Also would be great to have:  to possess a first edition classic publication that names a new species, while also possessing a great fossil specimen from that particular species (and self collected!)  

 

......My 2 cents here y'all! 

 

[Tidgy's Dad]

One of Bobby's Prints. 

[caldigger]

How about we phrase this question as "When you personally think of a fossil, what is the one that comes to your mind first"?

I can attest that when ever I even mention the word "FOSSIL" to anyone now, the first words out of their mouth is "do you have a Megalodon shark tooth?" 

I think whatever is the newest popular media feed for the masses at the time is what society focuses on.  After Jurassic Park came out, it seemed the focus was on dinosaurs. 

[Manticocerasman]

every collection should at least have : a trilobite, an ammonite and a shark tooth so you have a representative of respectively: the Paleozoic, the Mesozoic and Cenozoic area

( the shark tooth has to be of the cenozoic of course )

 

I think that those three fossils are in most of the collections worldwide.

 

[Tidgy's Dad]

4 minutes ago, caldigger said:

How about we phrase this question as "When you personally think of a fossil, what is the one that comes to your mind first"?

I can attest that when ever I even mention the word "FOSSIL" to anyone now, the first words out of their mouth is "do you have a Megalodon shark tooth?" 

I think whatever is the newest popular media feed for the masses at the time is what society focuses on.  After Jurassic Park came out, it seemed the focus was on dinosaurs. 

This is why we need that horror movie "Night of the Brachiopods." 

[Manticocerasman]

Just now, Tidgy's Dad said:

This s why we need that horror movie "Night of the Brachiopods." 

they 'll filter you to death 

 

[caldigger]

13 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

This is why we need that horror movie "Night of the Brachiopods." 

"Run for your lives!!!!  Oh wait, we dont have to run." 

"Hey everybody, let's have a clam bake!"

[Tidgy's Dad]

9 minutes ago, caldigger said:

"Run for your lives!!!!  Oh wait, we dont have to run." 

"Hey everybody, let's have a clam bake!"

Hmmm.

Mobility could be a bit of a problem, though inarticulate brachiopod larvae have a free swimming stage and some brachiopods may have been able to swim like scallops.

And they could be pretty darned spiny! 

 

[Manticocerasman]

3 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Hmmm.

Mobility could be a bit of a problem, though inarticulate brachiopod larvae have a free swimming stage and some brachiopods may have been able to swim like scallops.

And they could be pretty darned spiny! 

 

watch out for those "inarticulate" brachiopods, they go for a silent kill

 

[caldigger]

1 minute ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Hmmm.

Mobility could be a bit of a problem, though inarticulate brachiopod larvae have a free swimming stage and some brachiopods may have been able to swim like scallops.

And they could be pretty darned spiny! 

 

So what you're saying is we just need to stay out of the ocean at night and we'll be fine. Trust me, there's a lot scarier things moving about in the ocean at night than some ravenous brachiopods.

[Tidgy's Dad]

Just now, caldigger said:

So what you're saying is we just need to stay out of the ocean at night and we'll be fine. Trust me, there's a lot scarier things moving about in the ocean at night than some ravenous brachiopods.

Plastic, mainly.

[Manticocerasman]

we are wandering from the subject , but Brachiopods should also be present in every fossil collection.

 

[caldigger]

4 minutes ago, Manticocerasman said:

we are wandering from the subject , but Brachiopods should also be present in every fossil collection.

 

You're just trying to placate the old man!

[Manticocerasman]

2 minutes ago, caldigger said:

You're just trying to placate the old man!

still, I'm sure you got at least 1 brachiopod in your collection

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

Hello everybody, I would like to apologize for the clickbaitish title and the poorly worded post. I did not mean for this to make anyone feel like their collection is inadequate, the wrong type, or worthless. When I’m writing a post, I like to remind people about the basics of the hobby. A kind of reminder to remember your roots so to speak. “What should be in every collector’s collection?”. Ultimately it is whatever they decide to put into it. With the staples comment, I wanted to highlight the basic fossils that generally start someone’s collection. Around where I live, it’s probably going to be some kind of trilobite or fish from Wyoming just because they are plentiful, recognized, collectible, and inexpensive. I know amber can be one of those collection-starting fossils in some parts of the world. My piece of amber reminded me that not everybody has abundant trilobites, brachiopods, and crinoids around them. There should be a variety of answers to what is a staple and it may reflect what is most common in your part of the world and that’s just fine. In my collection, I am working on having a representative of all the major collecting avenues. The base of each field. I consider my amber piece to be a representative of a major field of fossils. Amber is a big field, ammonites are a big field, dinosaurs, brachipods, condonts, trilobites, the Ordivician, fossils from Utah, red colored fossils etc. are all major fields of collecting. Perhaps I should have asked “What is the most representative fossil of the type you collect?”. We all have an area we particularly like and there are fossils that are well known in each field. These are the ones I hoped would be discussed. Do I think you must have an Elrathia kingii in your collection even if you have no desire to have one just because it’s one of the main representatives of the organisms we call trilobites? No. Do I think you’re not a collector if you don’t have one? No. We all have different interests and that’s ok. Those fossils that are “must-haves” are the ones YOU must have. In this context, it is the ones that YOU find the most curious, exciting, interesting, and enjoy collecting. You can collect anything from the smallest diatom to the biggest sauropod and still be a collector. You can have 1 fossil or a small museum and be collectors. @Kane, if you find this topic to be more detrimental than beneficial to this community please lock it.

[Kane]

@UtahFossilHunter: I adore this line: "Those fossils that are “must-haves” are the ones YOU must have. In this context, it is the ones that YOU find the most curious, exciting, interesting, and enjoy collecting." 

 

I see no reason or justification to lock this topic; quite the contrary. So many different perspectives have been shared, and that is a good thing. Often the seemingly most simple or innocuous questions lead to the most profound insights and varied perspectives, as well as a great deal of learning.  

[Uncle Siphuncle]

11 hours ago, UtahFossilHunter said:

bought

I’m a generalist, so I enjoy seeing everyone’s collections, regardless of narrowness or breadth, but I especially enjoy perusing collections of those who were at it in earnest decades before the advent of the internet.  Serendipity, opportunity, and effort intertwine for each of us with a different flavor, so no 2 collections are alike.  For that I’m glad, or it would be boring to look through another guy’s displays.  While my collection isn’t exactly small, I’m not covetous in a material sense.  I look at my finds as a way to reminisce the adventures and misadventures of discovery.  That one cost me a truck, that one got us chased by a helicopter, that one involved a chat with the sheriff, that one brought a tangle with a 6 foot rattler, wife found that, son found that one after I missed it, etc.

[aplomado]

These are all some good buys.  I love my own finds, but can't find much spectacular around here (did find a small mosasaur tooth though):
 

American trilobites from Ohio and Utah; very pretty and cheap

 

Madagascar ammonites- a steal

 

Megaladon tooth!  no explanation needed

 

Keichousarus- can be pretty spectacular fossils for the price if you look carefully

 

Mosasaur teeth! Cheap and really cool!

 

Fern fossils from the USA- some very pretty and not expensive