sundance Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Hi all, i am new to this site and very new to collecting fossils. I am from Scotland and while on holiday on the east cost of England i came across this embeded in a lump of clay, there were other fossils around it which i have identified but this has stumped me, i thought it was a tooth at first but i really am unsure. it feels very smooth and quite heavy for its size (9 grams) There is a deffinate break point on it. Any help would be much apreciated, Thank you. (If it is just a lump of nothing, please feel free to say so!!) Cheers Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artofextinction Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Welcome to the forum! doesn't look like any fossil i am familiar with but someone here will surely be able to help you. ArtofExtinction ArtofExtinction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jax Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I really dont know what it could be. It kinda looks like a piece of Flint. I know there are some people on here that are more knowledgable with that area too. Maybe they could help more. Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest N.AL.hunter Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Looks like a tektite to me. From the Heavens... a meteorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nicholas Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Could also be Onyx of Obsidian... any of the black stones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundance Posted August 1, 2008 Author Share Posted August 1, 2008 Thanks, i am pretty sure its not flint, and i have seen some tektite before which i dont think it resembles but i could be wrong (according to my wife i am always wrong!! ) Thank you for your help so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiezel Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I would have to agree with N.AL.hunter on this one. I'm sure it is not a fossil, but the way you described it being rather heavy for its size and the look of it has me thinking extraterrestrial too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruitbat Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Looks an awful lot like a piece of one of the iron meteorites to me too! I don't know anything about the geology where it was collected so I can't say that it is obsidian or one of the other types of volcanic 'glass'. -Joe Illigitimati non carborundum Fruitbat's PDF Library Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 It is heavy, appears to be homogenous, and is amorphously eroded or ablated; tektite/meteorite should be under serious consideration. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jax Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Run it under a metal detector and you will know if its an iron metorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 See if it is magnetic. I was thinking it might be a meteorite also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 I don't think it is a meteorite. There is no pitting, and the color is uniform. If it were Ni/Fe, it would have some FeO stains. I'm thinking mineral that has been worked by wave action, or a stream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 sort of like what others said, it looks like a cherty/obsidiany, concoidally-fracturing, moderately water-worn black rock. Make a cabochon out of it and put in in a ring. When someone asks what it is, tell them it's cryptocrystalline quartz and its harmonic convergence vibrations keep time with the universal clock to the nanosecond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundance Posted August 2, 2008 Author Share Posted August 2, 2008 Thanks very much for all your replys, tried it on a magnet and under a metal detector no sign of any iron deposits at all. it is all very smooth except the one side in picture 2 where the face has some small lumps. Thank you all again. Cheers Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossisle Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Hi Could be Jet Fossisle Cephalopods rule!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundance Posted August 2, 2008 Author Share Posted August 2, 2008 HiCould be Jet Fossisle isnt jet very lite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Since it is not metallic, I'm thinking chert or obsidian. It has all the characteristics. Check it's hardness. If it is a 7, you probably have an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Chert would be the heavier of the two. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Chemically they are very similar ... Obsidian having some impurities and no structure, but their specific gravities are virtually the same, so they will appear to weigh about the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Chemically they are very similar ... Obsidian having some impurities and no structure, but their specific gravities are virtually the same, so they will appear to weigh about the same. Thanks for the correction! I checked, and I'm guilty of offering false information With an SG of 2.65 vs. 2.60, no one could tell by heft. As you suggested , hardness will tell. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 Thanks for the correction! I checked, and I'm guilty of offering false information With an SG of 2.65 vs. 2.60, no one could tell by heft. As you suggested , hardness will tell. too many people in the past came up with two many names for the same minerals. it can be very confusing. for this reason, i'm going to write whatever authorities exist on the matter and insist that everything involving SiO2 be described as chert with modifying adjectives after it. Diamond would be "chert with attitude". Orangey chert would be "the chertist formerly known as carnelian", etc. Crystal quartz would be "clearly chert", etc. Unknown samples, such as the one above, are easy to deal with. carry a backpack when you go rock hunting - put all samples in it, and then refer to the unknowns as "the chert off my back". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 "_ _ _ everything involving SiO2 be described as chert with modifying adjectives after it. Diamond would be "chert with attitude". Remind me to never buy from or trade minerals with you. KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 too many people in the past came up with two many names for the same minerals. it can be very confusing. for this reason, i'm going to write whatever authorities exist on the matter and insist that everything involving SiO2 be described as chert with modifying adjectives after it. A quick primer in mineral ID might be in order. IDing minerals is a fairly straight forward process of elimination. HERE is a site that goes over the basics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 yeah, i guess i got too exuberant with my generalizations, thinking hyperbole can be comic. i would say i know the difference between carbon and silicon, but i don't wanna get too graphite here. i'm leaving chert alone, and i'm not going to pick on flint or jasper, either. if it's purple and laying on a beer can, i'm calling it amethyst. otherwise, it's either dirt, bone or chalcedony. or shale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 ...otherwise, it's either dirt, bone or chalcedony. or shale. Don't forget schist! Then there's Son of Schist: Metagraywacke, which we have in great abundance along the fall line just upstream from DC. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now