2012 Meihinten-- photos by Jeff Amas

Traditionally, suiseki are not fossils. Since a coprolite ("dung feces") is a fossil, it is probably not the source. Still, this does seem formed by modelling rather than by natural weathering. I'm reminded of the formed casts left of bodies at Pompeii. What to make of it as suiseki is a good question, Todd.

Andre is correct (in an earlier question) about the outer layer of granite peeling off a boulder (& then weathering) to form two of the stones illustrated. These are kurama-ishi-- red granite stones sourced from the Kyoto area. The Kurama & Kibune Rivers join the Kamo River just north of Kyoto. Kurama stone is very often seen in among Kyoto stepping stones. The fine-grained red granite is appreciated as suiseki for mountain stones suggesting autumn season color as well as the color of a mountain at break-of-day. The peeled granite crescents are best-known as boat stones, but could arguably be appreciated as "water pool"/mizutamari stones.

An article in California Aiseki Kai magazine suggested any "boat-shaped stone"/funagata-ishi appreciated as landscape-view stone (the most narrow limit of suiseki appreciation) should be read as a plain boat that has been partially submerged in still water (arguably, as a "romanticized ruin"/"landscaping folly"). Since many Japanese gardens contain just such a plain, partially-submerged boat in pond--e.g., Nezu Museum garden, Tokyo-- linked HERE. Combining the boat-shaped stone with water perceived in its interior (whether actually pooled or not) might add another level of consideration & feeling for boat-shaped suiseki observers.

Thank you Chris.

I also like going back and forth with the stones, we still havnt figured out what stone #22 is, it still looks to me like Coprolite - Teradactyl poo, the other thing it could be is mud splatter. But for sure that wasnt formed by water and wind erosion!
I have seen fossils as Suiseki, Fossilized bamboo roots, cycas cones ect.

I missed the joke....and the game?

Yvonne you do like quite stones as a preference?

My favourite is #20 #28 and #40
I agree # 29 is very powerfull!

love and light

Hi Andre

Thanks for asking

I like awesome "wild" stones too.....But the quet stones, is always a rest for my eyes, when I think about things.
The other kind of stones demands activity from me, and takes my full attension.

Stone nr. 20 is a highclass stone, but a bit spacey for me.

stone nr. 28 Looks like a chrysantemumstone, rough and like a landscape..The stone is awesome holding theese 3 elements, and on the top of this, does it look like it is partly covered with snow....very nice indeed.

Stone nr. 29 One of the best waterfallstones I ever saw, elegant rough and with a awesome movement together with the platou.

Stone nr. 40 is the very nice honest version of stone nr. 22, who to me is terrible...It could have been nice, but it looks like parts have been broken off not long ago, and also does it give me a feeling of industrial vaste....This stone, or whatever it is, does not give me the "suiseki-feeling"...was it a real stone, and I found it, would it have stayed in the garden for the fun of it....I like the daiza with the stone.

Kind regards Yvonne