Proposal for grading fossils

[matgerke]

Prompted by a few posts I saw earlier, I was wondering if there is any somewhat accepted method or criteria for grading a fossil.  I recognize that grading fossils is, as a general rule, more useful for trading or purchasing fossils, but it would also be useful for amateur field collectors (like me) who want to identify which of their specimens is the highest quality.  I also recognize that quality is only one factor among many (scarcity, aesthetics, scientific value, etc.) that make a fossil interesting or attractive.  However, I believe that a grading system would be useful for paleontologists, like it is for other collectors.  I did a quick search and didn't come up with much.  So I would like to offer up a grading system / methodology for comment.  Please let me know how it might be strengthened or improved to make it more useful for the community.

 

It seems as though there are at least two different, related metrics that should be factored into some average "grade":

• Completeness (is it the entire organism or just a portion of the organism?  If it is a portion of the organism, is the portion complete, as in an entire femur?)
• Preservation (How well are details preserved?  How about soft tissue?  Is it articulated?)

So, just to throw something out there, I'll propose a 0-to-9 grading scale.  Obviously, not every fossil will fall neatly into one of these ratings, so some judgment will still be necessary.  

 

--------------------

• 0
  • Specimen does not have sufficient detail to positively determine that it is a fossil (biological in origin)
• 1
  • Specimen is a fossil fragment, but it is insufficient to confidently identify even the size of the organism. 
  • Specimen has no details that would allow identification below the Phylum level. 
    • Example: hash of tiny shell fragments (coquina)
    • Example: bone shard
    • Example: sliver of petrified wood
• 2
  • Specimen is a fragment that suggests the general size of the organism.  
  • Specimen has no details that would allow identification below the Phylum level (i.e. bone fragment versus shell fragment), beyond a general indication of the size of the organism.
    • Example: shell fragment showing enough curvature to indicate the approximate size of the shell
    • Example: bone fragment showing enough curvature to indicate the approximate diameter of the bone.
    • Example: a slice of half a trunk of petrified wood
• 3
  • Specimen is a fragment that suggests what part of the organism the fragment represents.
  • Specimen has sufficient detail to allow identification of the anatomical part represented by the specimen.  Generally, this should allow identification at the Class level or below.
    • Example: broken mollusc shell
    • Example: partial turtle scute
    • Example: partial fossil leaf
• 4
  • Specimen is a fragment that contains an entire functional piece of the organism (such as a tooth).
  • Specimen has good surface details.  Often this will allow for identification of the specimen at the Family level or below.
    • Example: trilobite pygidium
    • Example: complete turtle scute
    • Example: complete fossil leaf
• 5
  • Specimen represents a major component of the organism (such as the skull or an appendage), but there are pieces missing from the component.
  • Specimen has sufficient detail to understand the anatomical relationship between various parts of the organism (i.e. it is articulated).  Often this will allow for identification of the specimen at the Family level or below.
    • Example: fossil bivalve shell (one half only) with some broken bits
    • Example: complete jaw with several teeth missing
    • Example: tree branch without leaves
• 6
  • Specimen represents a major component of the organism (such as the skull or an appendage), and the component is complete.
  • Specimen preserves fine detail of the component.  Often this will allow for identification of the specimen at the Genus level.
    • Example: fossil bivalve shell (one half only) without any chips missing
    • Example: Complete oreodont skull
    • Example: Tree branch with leaves intact
• 7
  • Specimen represents a substantially complete organism, although some major fragments may be missing. 
  • Specimen has sufficient detail to understand the general anatomy of the organism, as well as fine detail in at least some portions of the fossil.  Generally, this will allow for identification of the specimen at the Genus level or below.
    • Example: Insect in amber that is missing its wings
    • Example: Keichousaurus skeleton with one leg missing
    • Example: crinoid without its holdfast
• 8
  • Specimen represents a substantially complete organism; some minor fragments are missing, but they are easily filled in by the mind's eye.
  • Although some fragments of the specimen are missing, there is fine detail throughout the specimen, allowing definite identification of the species.
    • Example: a complete bivalve (both halves), with some small chips or holes
    • Example: Keichousaurus skeleton with a rib and a toe bone missing
    • Example: Crinoid with several columnal segments missing
• 9
  • Specimen represents the entirety of the organism.
  • Specimen is a superb example of the species, with all details preserved, including indications of soft tissue, if applicable.
    • Example: Complete Archaeopteryx fossil with feathers
    • Example: Complete Green River Formation stingray
    • Example: Complete insect in amber

[JohnJ]

Given the immense, contextual nature of various fossil types, I don't see this as a practical exercise for fossils, in general.  It may have uses for very narrow genera or species. However, its application would still be subjective.  All in all, I'm not a fan.  

[Herb]

The idea is interesting, but I do not see the need. A couple pictures will suffice for the quality.

[FossilsAnonymous]

A lot of fossils that are in my “top quality” area are there because of the memories I have collecting them or the scientific value. When I take a quick look at my collection, I don’t look at fossils that are “high grade” when I see my top fossils. I see fossils that I love and are interesting to me and the community.

You obviously put a lot of work into this description and while the idea may be useful for your collection, I doubt it would become widely accepted on the forum or to other people. This seems to take a lot away from the true excitement of finding the fossil and puts it more into a sterilized environment where it’s not important.

 

[FossilNerd]

2 hours ago, JohnJ said:

Given the immense, contextual nature of various fossil types, I don't see this as a practical exercise for fossils, in general.  It may have uses for very narrow genera or species. However, its application would still be subjective.  All in all, I'm not a fan.  

I agree. A daunting task that would be an exercise in futility. IMHO.

Some people prefer fossils with more discernible diagnostic details over complete specimens, but many others prefer complete fossils, and would pass over a partial without a second thought. No matter how well preserved.

 

Whole species of flora/fauna may be based off of one partial fossil, and may not have many known examples for the species, so anything recognizable, whether partial, complete, well preserved, or poorly preserved, would be a valued piece to most.

 

Some people prefer certain organisms as well. An individual may value a less well preserved trilobite over a more well preserved coral, or vice versa. 

 

Yet other people collect what is aesthetically pleasing to them, and they value things like shape, form, color, texture, etc. above all else.
 

I could go on and on...

 

There are just so many variables with fossils, and what makes them valuable to the collector, that I don’t see how a general grading scale could ever exist.

[Bobby Rico]

Nice idea but for me to compare all fossils from all walks of life in a single grading system seams to me to be floored . I hope you don’t take offence but I find it a little soulless to simplify the complexity of fossil life in a grading scale for the only reason I can see is to give it money value. I don’t know why science would need to use this system. It also reminds of the grading in say antique or record collecting. 
As @Herb said all you need is a couple of photos . 
Some members might find it useful or helpful in some way but this is not for me. I mean you no disrespect. 
 

cheers Bobby 

[FossilNerd]

1 minute ago, FossilsAnonymous said:

A lot of fossils that are in my “top quality” area are there because of the memories I have collecting them or the scientific value. When I take a quick look at my collection, I don’t look at fossils that are “high grade” when I see my top fossils. I see fossils that I love and are interesting to me and the community.

You obviously put a lot of work into this description and while the idea may be useful for your collection, I doubt it would become widely accepted on the forum or to other people. One mans trash is another mans treasure.

I completely agree. 
 

One of my most treasured fossils is a very common and not particularly well preserved, trilobite. To most other collectors it would be next to worthless, but (long story short) it is the fossil that got me into collecting as a serious hobby. So it is without a doubt my most prized and valued fossil.

[Randyw]

3 minutes ago, FossilNerd said:

Whole species of flora/fauna may be based off of one partial fossil, and may not have many known examples for the species, so anything recognizable, whether partial, complete, well preserved, or poorly preserved would be a valued piece to most.

 

3 minutes ago, FossilNerd said:

There are just so many variables with fossils and what makes them valuable to the collector that I don’t see how a general grading scale could ever exist.

+1 I couldn’t have said it better myself. With the limited and scarce quantity of so many varieties of fossils and with so much of the value being in the eye of the collectors any grading system would be of limited use.

[FossilsAnonymous]

@FossilNerd your trilobite is very similar to my favorite fossil. While my favorite is uncommon, it’s damaged and not huge. But it marked the point where I became interested in the true science of paleontology rather than the “cool shark teeth”.

Man, I love that cow.

[FossilNerd]

8 minutes ago, FossilsAnonymous said:

Man, I love that cow.

I understand what you mean. Every time I see the little bug in my display case it makes me smile.  

[FranzBernhard]

@matgerke, you really put a lot of intellectual effort in this compilation! Thank you for that!

 

Yes, it looks rigid, but to me it gives a handy framework, I like it in some way (you all know, my simple mind...).

 

It will often be difficult to put a single number on a specimen, but you could use a sliding scale instead. Don´t say 3, just say 2-4.

 

It can be used as an extra indicator of "quality" beside description and good pics. I can imagine, that some people would like it.

 

And yes, personal value is something completely different than this grading scale; these two have nothing to do with each other.

 

Franz Bernhard

[matgerke]

Thanks for all these comments.  I enthusiastically agree with the comments that grade is really just one way to value a fossil -- and certainly not the most important one.  For me, it's the rarity and scientific value of the fossil that really excites me, more than the "quality", but everyone has his own criteria.  This system is not intended to say that low-grade fossils are not valuable -- low-grade fossils may be scientifically important, or beautiful, or rare, or sentimental, or just plain awesome.  Conversely, I have lots of extremely well-preserved fossils that are just boring in their commonness.

 

An important point here is that a grading system is not really intended really to judge fossils between species.  Every paleontologist would rather have a low-grade archaeopteryx than a high-grade clam.  But it would be very useful in judging fossils of the same species.  I personally would rather have a high-grade clam that is an excellent representative of its species than a low-grade clam that is barely recognizable.  

 

Here's how I would use a grading system personally: I sometimes go to familiar fossil hunting locations where there are huge numbers of some common fossil I already have -- say, Chesapecten jeffersonius.  Sometimes there are so many fossils, that I don't really know what to look for.  Should I be looking for new species that I don't have in my collection?  Should I be scooping up every fossil I can find?  Should I be looking for specimens that are already represented in my collection, but are somehow "better" than the ones I already have?  It would add some excitement back into hunting at these locations, if I knew that I already had a Grade 5 Chesapecten jeffersonius, and that I should ignore anything of that species that is Grade 5 or lower.  Then I could get a thrill if I found a Grade 6.  I might also be more inclined to hunt in new locations that were rumored to have higher-grade fossils, even if I already have a fossil of that species in my collection.  Bottom line is that a grading system would, for me, give me an exciting goal even if I'm hunting in a location with common fossils.

 

Again, none of this should take the magic out of our hobby, and if grading your finds doesn't work for you, then don't do it.  But I think for some of us, a more objective measure would be helpful.

[Kane]

It's an interesting way to describe examples in one's own collection, for sure. I think some of us perform this assessment informally to decide what examples may occupy pride of place in a finite display case. Revisiting collecting spots is certainly an ideal way to track down better representatives of a species, and possibly having more "B-grade" specimens on hand for trade, gift, or sale.

 

As an organizational tool, I could see a system like this being helpful for an individual in sorting large collections of a single species, just as some people choose to organize their personal libraries by alphabetical author and/or genre for easy personal storage and retrieval.

[FranzBernhard]

44 minutes ago, matgerke said:

I have lots of extremely well-preserved fossils that are just boring in their commonness.

Oh no!! Think about it - its witness of long-gone life. Thats awesome in itself, that we are able to hold such things in our hands and admire them intellectually and emotionally. There is no such thing like a boring fossil.

 

And common species are important - they may reflect one of the backbones of a long-gone habitat.

Personally, I admire common fossils more than rare fossils. But thats just a matter of taste, mine is something special, of course...!

 

48 minutes ago, matgerke said:

Every paleontologist would rather have a low-grade archaeopteryx than a high-grade clam.

I would love to have a high-grade clam with some accompanying common fauna more than an archaeo - this should belong to a museum collection. But I am not a paleontologist, of course .

 

Franz Bernhard

[Bobby Rico]

1 hour ago, matgerke said:

An important point here is that a grading system is not really intended really to judge fossils between species.  Every paleontologist would rather have a low-grade archaeopteryx than a high-grade clam.

Sometimes I prefer partial fossil to full if the are nicely placed in the matrix and of course well prepared (preparation maybe a side category could be added) With some associated fauna or Flora is also interesting to display. The other thing is rarity of location , I have a few ammonites that are rare only because of of the location ( or now lost locations) and I display them for this reason.  One more curve ball how about fossils that are partials but show predator feeding? I always find them interesting too. You have made a good case for grading a collection and an interesting thread this definitely is.

 

cheers Bobby 

[minnbuckeye]

Nice thought process, matgerke. I do not like it because my wife would force me to get rid of my 1's through 6's which would leave me with nothing!! Kidding aside, as a hobbyist of fossils, I continue to need to address my accumulated mass of fossils and make some decisions on what to keep, what to donate, and what to put out back in my rock pile. My method is very personal to me and would NOT work for anyone else. A rigid non-emotional format like yours misses much of why I enjoy this hobby. 

 

Mike

[JohnJ]

3 hours ago, matgerke said:

An important point here is that a grading system is not really intended really to judge fossils between species. 

 

Maybe so, but the subjective conundrum of this system is that a "complete", perfect oreodont skull, or T. rex skull...or hominid skeleton like "Lucy" only rates a "6".  

 

Due to the amount of variables involved, a scale for grading "quality" fossils (within a species or genera) seems impractical or overly complex in its application.  

[Ruger9a]

I hope I'm not seeing this proposed grading process going the same way as the Certified Coin Grading services started in the late 70s, early 80s - professionally controlled.  Which to me is selective, un-controllable and with the highest grades always being assigned to the customer who gives them the most business.  With that being said, here are some of the things to consider (and I probably missed a lot):

 

1.     Is the fossil in the original “as found” condition (Yes/No)?  If no, what of the following conditions apply?

2.     Cleaned: 

a.     Was it cleaned harshly or gently without removing details or color?

b.     Did the cleaning process leave abrasive scaring?  If so, to what extent?  

c.     What chemicals were used in the cleaning process?  Some chemicals will deteriorate a fossil if not properly and completely removed.

3.     Waxed or chemically coated:

a.     If waxed, is it water soluble that can be easily removed or a heavy paste wax that would damage the fossil during removal, if so desired/preferred?

b.     Has it been coated with a non-removable chemical or preservative?  What kind?  Some preservatives are almost mandatory for bone fossils.

4.     Repaired: 

a.     Was it a professional, amateur or botched repair (scale 1-10?).

b.     What percent of the fossil was repaired?

5.     Restored: 

a.     Was it a professional, amateur or botched restoration (scale 1-10?).  

b.     What percent of the fossil was restored?

6.     Painted:

a.     Was it a professional, amateur or botched paint job (scale 1-10?).

b.     What percent of the fossil was painted?

7.     Composite:

a.     Was it a professional, amateur or botched job?

b.     What is the percentage is composite material? 

8.     Eye appeal: 

a.     What would the rating scale be 1-10?

b.     What would the scale be based upon or compared to? On-line or museum specimens?

 

Most honest sellers will tell you these things, if asked.  If it's not included in their description.  Food for thought.

[Herb]

a 5 of a rare fossil is better than nothing

[BobWill]

I agree with the others. About the only uses I can think of might be for commercial purposes or for a designation of archived material for researchers to decide which specimen to examine in person. That said, a much simpler system would likely do for those uses.

 

In a topic about lagerstätten we discussed a numerical system for judging collecting sites. That also would have limited uses since we usually choose a site based on where we are, or expect to travel to, or what we are looking for. That said it might be handy for deciding what tools to bring, what collecting success to expect or which site to choose if there are choices.

 

[Bone Daddy]

I like the idea. It gives a way to roughly quantify something that is difficult to quantify. I would find something like this useful for my own internal records and logs. I do a lot of fossil-hunting in the field and I revisit a number of different sites. This results in the recovery of many redundant fossils of types common to a given locality. With some kind of grading system, it would assist me in determining what I exactly I have and what to focus on in a crowded field of many fossil types.

 

As far as grading for monetary value goes, I think we shouldn't worry about that - that is very subjective and the market determines value. Like a previous poster said, for collector/dealer value, a group of good photos is usually good enough to make solid determinations.

 

Thanks for making this scale. I like it and would try to incorporate some of the condition/treatment/prep issues also mentioned above (for fossils purchased/traded instead of recovered personally).