New stones to share

First post to the suiseki forum. Any input or feedback on these stones will be appreciated.

I have been involved with bonsai for a few years, and have recently begun to develop an interest and appreciation for viewing stones. I went on what was really my first rock hunting trip north of our home in Tulsa, OK. The hunt was along a small beach at Lake Oolagah (a manmade lake). This was a great time. I have a 6 year old son and it is often difficult to do tree related activities together (if you have boys this age you will know what I mean). BUT..take these little guys for a rock hunting trip and it's a great family activity.

Please follow the link to see the 11 stones I found. My son mostly kept clamshells & found a couple dead fish.......boys

url=http://picasaweb.google.com/TenseiBonsaicollection/PotsStones#5318259124864275666

I am unsure of the type of stone/material specifically. How acceptable/unacceptable are small fossil inclusions? One of the better stones has a few crinoids. I like the shape but the inclusions are kind of a distraction.

Thanks and best regards. I've enjoyed each of your photos very much.
Neil

another link.
http://picasaweb.google.com/TenseiBonsaicollection/PotsStones#http://picasaweb.google.com/TenseiBonsaicollection/PotsStones#

Hi Neil,

You have some interesting stones; thanks for showing Are the stones dry or wet? It's difficult to see all the great inclusions when wet and really hard to see all the features. Sorry this reply is so short.... I'll be back tomorrow for more comments!

Best wishes,
Norma

Hi Neil... Welcome to the IBC Stone Forum. Thanks for sharing.

I see on your "Broken Arrow Bonsai" website that Matt Ouwinga is among enthusiasts you deeply respect. I studied under Kunio Kobayashi (with Peter Warren) as first apprentice, too. Kobayashi sized me up quickly as a suiseki enthusiast, but I tried to learn a bit of bonsai & display practice, as well, during a year in Tokyo.

Please try to post photos on this Forum rather than merely noting a URL (web address). Web addresses to photo albums are nearly useless for generating discussion.

To add an existing website photo to IBC galleries:
1. RIGHT-click over a single picture on the website & a text-box will pop-up,
2. RIGHT-click Properties (the last item on the text-box menu) & a new text-box will pop-up including a "URL"...,
3. RIGHT-click the URL address and choose Copy from that text-box menu.
4. Go to the IBC post you are composing or editing & choose an icon above the text you are writing that looks like a green PC Monitor Icon. The icon looks like a green screen with a thin, white border, and it says "Image" if the cursor is held over it. Its is the 16th icon from the left.
5. LEFT-click the Monitor Icon and paste your copied URL in the window which pops up.
6. Click the box labelled "Ok," and the image ") of your photio will be pasted at the end of the page which you are composing.
7. Copy & paste if the photo needs moving.

Hope that helps. Feel free to ask me (or others) if you need help.

On the photo of Stone #4 (which I added to the post, above) can you share if the stone is very heavy, mid-weight or relatively light?

All your stones appear small (several less 3" in width) which is fine but rarely seen in suiseki exhibits. I recall Mr. Kobayashi paying Y100,000 (roughly ~$1000) for a boxed, 2-or-3 inch wide landscape-view stone from Mr. Koide (son of the Nippon Bonsai Association chairman who preceded Saburo Kato). Including its signed box, he said afterward that it was a great bargain; Mr. Kobayashi did not volunteer to share further regarding the history of the small Sado-Akadama-ishi stone. In glass cases including famous Japanese pots, he had other very small stones. Objects in those cases were all dear.

The well-respected Pennsylvania bonsai enthusiast Jack Billet displayed stones of similar size on small rectangular shelves resembling in miniatrure form the full-sized shohin-kazari-dana "small-thing+display+shelves" seen in Japanese exhibits of shohin bonsai.

I'll post another of your stones (which you comment as among your favorites because of its color)...


Please post content here in order to encourage discussion. BTW, nice tree posted on the "Test forum," Neil.

Chris,
Thank you very much for your suggestions regarding posting photos.

Yes, Matt is a great friend of mine. I recently moved to Tulsa from Central Illinois & lived fairly close to Matt. I spent many Saturdays and Sundays at Matt's working on his trees. He has been a great teacher & friend to me. Incidentally, the trident you referred to that I posted on the test forum joined my collection through Matt.

Regarding the weight of the stone in question. It is very very light. It just about covers the length of ones hand....out of curiousity why do you ask?

When posting photos of stones, is it better to attempt to display on a stand etc...I have many bonsai pots, but nothing really for stones.

Thank you for taking the time to look.
Neil

I have added a pic of the same stone from a top view.


And the view of the opposite side.


I also enjoy this one quite a bit, just because it is such a simple stone.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_sQq0e5jsUXY/Sc5BoAZmjoI/AAAAAAAAB_0/kkN-Hj7rgts/s640/P1020016.JPG

Another

Another. If you look closely at this one, there are a few crinoid inclusions on the bottom edge. This one reminds me of a distant rugged landscape. On the left, there is a small "pool"


Another stone:




Hope you enjoy.
Neil

Wow... thanks for the great images (landing before my response was completed, here)...

Hi Neil... After years of sharing our feelings about display of stones, I think everybody here is happy to see them in whatever form you care to share. Most of us like the bottom of a stone as well as the top, both sides, front & back. Often a shot from directly above the stone distinguishes its quality as a bonsai with an asymmetric ridge or ridges for mountain-peak stones extending toward the outside profile in each direction. I noted you take such photos commonly as well as front, somewhat elevated shots-- those are VERY GOOD. Additionally, you often include a bit of your hand to suggest the stone's size-- brilliant!

I'd much rather see a hand caressing a small stone than a ruler-- but my preference need not be yours. Whatever is used to suggest size might easily misinform because photos are often taken at short distance rather than zoomed from considerable difference. At short distance, the part of a small object in the closer foreground will appear considerably larger than other parts of the object at (even very modest) more distance. It is okay to take one measurement (the longest whether width or height) to assure everybody reads size alike.

For a stone recently evaluated for acceptance in the North American Viewing Stone Collection, there was only one photo taken of the stone. That is okay for getting an impression of stone from a front somewhat elevated perspective but isn't particularly useful for full evaluation. The particular stone had provenance suggesting it wasn't missing its back or otherwise disfigured.

For suiseki, the best impression is to see a stone directly from its front at a somewhat elevated angle as you would normally see a stone in an exhibit on a stand upon a raised table. It is also the view seen sitting in a Japanese style room with matted floor in seiza position (sitting upright on your heels) before a tokonoma, where the stone also sits on a flat board/stiff mat or more often on a low or medium-height footed stand. Stones in suiban are likely to be on lower tables to see the effects of water drying or to perceive contours where water could be allowed to stand or slowly evaporate on the stone's surface.

I asked about the weight of the stone because if the material was unusually heavy, it has scorching color which could indicate a meteorite. They usually have other qualities in contour not very evident in stone #4. I doubted it a meteor fragment because of the sharp edges on a section that is cleaved & caramel in color. That section in particular reminded me of iron slag, which is in rivers near me where Confederate armories once smelted iron. Slag is a byproduct which is feather light & may or may not exhibit bubbles generated from cooling of the material. Clearly, you have a variety of stones & a piece or two could be metal slag. It isn't light because of its size, so my guess is that object #4 is stone.

One of the more confounding shapes had a hole all the way through it & rounded sides. A shape more likely found in a partially rotted tree burl than in a stone. To me, it is fascinating in contour-- I hope you post its picture.

Hi Neil... The last stone (identifiied "Another stone") is the object whose contour I find so intriguing. The first photo of it, here, suggests a surface that could be created by gas bubbles breaking to leave repeated, small, surface craters. That could be from the smelting process I noted above; it is likely metal slag if the stone material is extremely light. I hope it is not because smelted slag is very friable (breaks easily on impact) and would not be as satisfying an object for collecting as a natural stone.

Pitting & pock marks can be a considerable asset is suiseki appreciation. Among the most appealing are those with edges softly rounded-- requiring a stone hard enough to take abuse but soft enough (and often of relatively fine grain) to allow wearing over time that looks 'aged' rather than 'broken' in its softness.