Questions on Viewing Stones

I've seen many fascinating viewing stones (?) posted by members, so bear with me as hopefully some of you would answer a few questions:

1. What do you look for as far as determining the suitability of stones to display? Do you look for something that represents something tangible such as a mountain, or something abstract and thought provoking in a different way?

2. Is there a "type" of stone that you find more appropriate for displaying such as metamorphic, sedimentary, or igneous?

3. To what degree, if any, is the stone altered after it is collected (cut, polished, cleaned etc.)?

What from I've gathered, it would seem that any "type" of stone is appropriate as long as it engages the imagination of the viewer and that some go through a process of polishing or at the very least a cleaning of some sort. Am I correct in this or just chasing butterflies?

I've collected rocks off and on for years, but I've only had 1 that I thought of as odd:










Again, I plead my total ignorance on this matter, yet I would love your critical thoughts as to the positive and negative of this rock. What is its suitability for display if any??

Thanks Loads,

John

Photo two looks like a Mastadon tooth in matrix?

Hi Orion,

Your stone is beautifully ribbed. A very peculiar stone indeed. I am sure beautifully mounted it would make for a good conversation starter. But I have to admit I am of little help as to how best to mount the stone. Hopefully other members will show you the way forward.

Karthik

Billy and Karthik,

Thank you for your input. I have no idea as to whether or not it's a fossil, but I have my doubts since it has metallic properties...attracted to a magnet.

but I have my doubts since it has metallic properties


I am not a geologist but I don't that would preclude it being a fossil.

Hi Orion

Your stone has a nice collor, and naturepatina.....But the shape is not really anything interesting when talking about suiseki....Could it be, you stone has the shape on the one side, because it once was a part of a stone arround a fossil?

You have many questions...enough to fill a book , and that is good....But learning about suiseki takes time, and it is a good idea to follow the posts here on IBC, and also read old posts, as something interesting turnes up in between.

Chris once posted the scedule showing how to categorize japanese suiseki...types,familys and the japanese names.
Maybe it was time to ask Cris to resend this scedule, as many new suisekipeople may be interested, and give a nice input to the understanding.

Kind regards Yvonne

Thank you very much for your reply Yvonne. I know I have a lot of questions like you said could fill volumes. Thank you for the info. to search through; this is going to start a whole new area of understanding....

Many thanks to you good people who relied.

John

Hey John!
Sounds like a good idea to me! get a picture book at the local library,
search the web (www.ystones.com) or on eBay(viewing stones) , google suiseki.
try (www.californiasuiseki.com) , Join a bonsai club in your area for fun,
with just a little help and desire you will quickly learn...

Hi John... I would not discount this stone as appreciated for its shape, color &/or texture. It might be a viewing stone if we understood your engagement with it. That a stone is "odd" is too little information to gauge its aesthetic interest for you.

Appreciating it as a fossil would not be viewing stone appreciation. Appreciating it because it is a mineral or for its mineral content as a rock would not be viewing stone appreciation. Forms of viewing stone appreciation help us organize our common appreciation.

Much of the appreciation of a stone as naturally contoured concerns it not appearing broken or incomplete in its weathering. Your illustrated stone is bit lacking in this completeness for me, but I am engaged by the partial regularity of its parallel surface texture.

My first thought was also to think it the fragment of a Trilobite fossil. While I can imagine more aesthetically, the stone's shape arguably leaves little option for appreciation when considered for mounting. Yvonne recommended looking at suiseki appreciation categories including one posted on IBC-- the Ei/Nagasi charts (linked HERE).

Suiseki is only one form of viewing stone appreciation, but it might be worth exploring.

Stonener and Chris,

Thank you both for your input and help; it leaves much food for thought. I think for now my engagement with it is simply bewildered. Suiseki is completely new to me so let the education process begin.

John

John,
just the fact that contains iron is very interesting.
My first thought was also cast of Ammonite, but its not as perfect. You get Pyritized Ammonites, that is metal.

It could be a Meteorite!! but then, how did it get that ribbed shape? Meteorites are Magnetic

Now I think, what if it is a bit of leftover material of an ancient metals smiths cast, of a cast. Like from the Roman or Bronze periods? It will help if you say where did you pick it up?

Is it Magnetic itself aswell? If it does then you have a Lodestone! Very very precious!!

Already I think your stone is quality material, it made alot of us think.... Isnt That the point of suikseki?

have a great weekend!

Hi Andre,

Thank you for your info. and thoughts. It was found where I live in the United States where there would be no Bronze Age artifacts to be had. It has no magnetic properties that I can determine, yet a magnet is slightly attracted to it. The obvious metallic properties are a bit of an enigma since it has no indication of rust, but does appear to have a sort of milky oxidation on the surface, therefore I'm guessing it's not iron. I tried to cut off a very small corner to view the interior, but all I had was a hacksaw and made very little progress after a considerable effort.

I then used a small grinder to see beneath the outer layer and the best I can describe it without a pic. is that it resembles something akin to the texture of lead, although the color is a very, very dark grey almost black. It's very dense and heavy for its size. Except for a portion of the exterior, it doesn't seem to contain any other minerals.

As for making us think? The more I think about it, the more of a brain-cramp I get.

John