Amber And Copal

[Mr. Edonihce]

Hi, All.

I know there's a difference between amber and copal (or sometimes called copal amber).

However, while I know that they are two different things (sort of), I'm not sure if I really know what the difference is.

I mean, I've read about the difference on various websites, and I know there's a general distinction of age, and some general tests that can be done to tell the difference, but where is the line actually drawn to distinguish between them?

Is there really a hard-core line that can be pointed to, or is it more a matter of opinion and what you want to use the substance for, and/or how much it means to any given person where it came from or how old it is?

Is there an age at which copal somehow just automatically turns into amber, or is it more of a gradual and intermittent process with all kinds of factors involved which could sometimes take x years in one setting and y years in another setting?

I suspect this is a bit like the discussion we had in recent weeks/months on 'what is a fossil?' in that there is probably a lot of gray area, and that it's more about an arbitrary consensus in the paleontological community (especially among professionals) and/or the various industries that consume the stuff, but I'm interested to hear your points of view on the subject here on this forum.

After reading this page about it, I get the age thing (i.e. 250 years versus either tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of years).

What if I like the honey bee that's caught in some tree resin from Columbia. I mean, assuming it's genuine tree resin, and not just something concocted in a lab, why should it matter whether it's 250 years old, or 40 million years old?

I didn't really intend this (I really was just interested in talking about amber and copal at first), but perhaps this is really just another route back to the question 'When does a formerly living organism (or a piece of that organism) become a fossil?'.

For instance... Does it have to do with how long it has been dead (in which case, we're just making an arbitrary judgment), or what amount of the original organism has been somehow or another replaced by some other substance (in which case something that is really freakin old might not yet be considered a fossil while something a lot younger already is considered a fossil simply because they were replaced at different rates based on different environmental conditions), or is it more so a grouping of factors comprising a general rule of thumb, accepted by the majority of those interested in such things?

So, what do you think?

[Auspex]

A widely accepted rule-of-thumb is that (the somewhat arbitrary) "pre-historic" (ie: 10,000+ years old) is the entry-level threshold for bearing the title of "fossil". It will at least get you through a polite conversation...

BTW: Tree resin is not properly called amber until it is fully polymerized; this takes a few million years at least, and is a less arbitrary marker that it seems at first blush.

[tracer]

hmmm, i'm highly qualified to speak to this issue, because i've been stung by both bees and wasps, and amber and copal are the color of honey.

the fact that one thing turns into another thing does not mean the two things are the same thing.

thank you very much. <said with elvis-ian accent>

p.s. - amber is more expensive than copal, which is sold as amber, for more money. you want german silver or silver? you want genuine faux corinthian leather or bison skin?

amber is kinda like nature's pretty plastic. copal is kinda like old tree sticky juice.

but just to qualify my sap-diss-hurt-ation, i have heard that the copal-cabana is the hottest spot north of havana. or something like that.

onward

[Petoskeygal]

According the the book:

"Secrets of a Lost World: Dominican Amber, and its Inclusions" by Rafael Jie Chiang Wu.............

"It is difficult to draw a line between copal and amber; the differenc lies only in their degree of polymerization."

"Polymerization means that the individual molecules slowly link up and cross-link into long chains. In the case of amber, this process alters the gross physical characteristics of resin and copal, and converts it into a deeper and harder substance that renders it more chemically inert and allows it to take a high polish

Tree 'rosin' turns into 'copal' sometimes in less than one million years (such as copal found near Bayaguana in the Dominican Republic) or longer. Amber is created over the course of millions of years. Amber is normally over 20 million years old, and is harder than Copal because the polymerization is further along. Amber is an amorphous substance (non-crystalline) and exhibits conchoidal fracture (like glass). "

I suggest you get some good books on Amber and Copal - where there would be better information that what can be found on the internet. Hope this helped.

[tracer]

books have no monopoly on truth, and there are huge amounts of good, free info online from which to benefit. all truths aside, whoever gets to define their terms inevitably wins at any game, but a fairly broadly accepted definition element for amber is that it is a fossil. and the generally accepted definition for a fossil requires no polymerization whatsoever, in that many fossils aren't polymerized.

[siteseer]

A few years ago, I asked an old friend who is both an entomologist and an amber collector for a good book on amber as it was a topic within paleontology for which I didn't have a reference. He suggested "Life in Amber" (Stanford University Press, 1992) by George O. Poinar Jr. and he even had an extra copy. Professor Poinar is an entomologist and widely-recognized expert on fossil insects and amber.

Within Chapter 1 (Amber and Its Formation), Poinar addresses this topic directly in a section titled, "Copal and Amber: Definitions and Characteristics" (pages 5-12) and he provides a table (Table 1) on page 7 in addition to the detailed text.

In the text he states that without sophisticated scientific equipment, the most reliable criteria to distinguish copal from amber are hardness, melting point, and solubility. Copal has a hardness of 1-2 (Moh's scale), a melting point under 150 degrees Celsius, and will start to dissolve with drops of acetone. Amber has a hardness of 2-3, a melting point of 200-380 degrees Celsius, and is not soluble with acetone. He adds that there is a difference in specific gravity (1.03-1.08 for copal; 1.04-1.10 for amber) and that under a UV light copal appears to have just a faint sheen at most while amber will glow with a distinct bluish color. You can also try a burn test (hot needle) with copal emitting a sputtering flame with whitish smoke and a lemon-resinous odor. Amber emits a steady flame with black smoke and an acrid odor. Poinar advises using more than one of these tests.

I would suggest reading the entire chapter as it discusses this topic thoroughly and second the recommendation of this book as well.

To answer your questions directly, copal is a hardened resin which takes on physical characteristics of amber after 3-4 million years depending on surrounding conditions (so there is no magic age cut-off as you suspected). Copal is distinguished from amber by at least two or more of the criteria above because there is a "gray area" with the hardness and improper testing could lead to the wrong conclusion. You should read the chapter.

It would appear the difference between copal and resin is more directly testable than fossil and subfossil and with more ways to test. It's true a fossil can be defined as anything that had been buried, but in science, a fossil would be defined as the remains of organisms from sediments no younger than Pleistocene-age without a requirement of mineral-replacement of the original composition. It's just that there isn't always a field test for fossils. A burn test can eliminate candidates to some extent but that works only for bones, and I suppose, wood.

If you just want a honeybee in hardened resin, then it's not an issue (some copal is old enough to be a fossil anyway), but some collectors want only amber specimens (unquestioned fossils) because they generally encase extinct species and they would like to be able to know copal from amber because expertise in distinguishing living and extinct insects is a whole other level of years-to-acquire knowledge.

Some fossils have not been mineral-replaced much at all even going back to the Cretaceous. Once, I tested a 15 million year old mako shark tooth to see if it was fully-mineralized by snapping it in half. Instead of snapping like a rock, the enameloid was still weirdly bendable.

So many factors can have an effect on how, and how well, a tooth, shell, or footprint is preserved. Many in this forum have seen beautifully-preserved trilobites from the Cambrian and crunched-up camel bones from the last ice age.

I tend to lean against using a website as a reference, although there are certainly numerous excellent ones. However, if you have a basic question about something technical, how do you know whether you're looking at a truly informative website by someone who knows the material? Instead, I try to determine who are the widely-respected experts of the given field and then look for references they've authored. In the case of amber, I was lucky to have a friend who could literally hand me the book.

Edited May 4, 2011 by siteseer

[drhemlock]

This issue is vexing to myself I have gone to ebay under fossils and have seen insects in baltic amber and asked myself are these real how can you tell if this material is real or just cooked up in a pot on a stove. Much like the morocco trilobites that are obvious fakes you see on said site are there dealers out there who sell reasonably priced specimens that one could get as I am interested in a few with insects.

Thanks

James

[tracer]

buy it raw and polish it yourself, and know what raw looks like...

fake stuff just keeps getting better over time and so the odds of being fooled get higher.

[mako-mama]

I suspect it will take many more years of testing before the copal/amber question is answered with any confidence. I will recommend the book, Plant Resins by Jean H Langenheim. You might also want to look over a slide show on the elasmo.com website. A direct link to the "amber" pages is: My link Just to clarify, it has never actually been determined that the Aurora amber is of botanical origin!

Edited May 18, 2011 by mako-mama