khara
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since September 2022
Posts: 1,980
|
Post by khara on May 4, 2023 15:55:00 GMT -5
That's some cool material, up top. Too bad it sounds like it can't really be cut and polished very successfully. And, I agree. I would like to be informed and just know the proper identification of things. Don't get me started on Larsonite, or whatever it is really. It's difficult to unlearn and relearn, especially as you age. Almost sounds like a good separate thread. This item is X, not Y, not Z! :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on May 4, 2023 17:07:31 GMT -5
That's some cool material, up top. Too bad it sounds like it can't really be cut and polished very successfully. And, I agree. I would like to be informed and just know the proper identification of things. Don't get me started on Larsonite, or whatever it is really. It's difficult to unlearn and relearn, especially as you age. Almost sounds like a good separate thread. This item is X, not Y, not Z! :-) This stuff is not crumbly as someone said the material is where they are at. Although the inner mineralization is softer than the host basalt rock. So don't know how easy it would be to cab. Maybe I will cut one of the less desirable pieces to experiment with. |
|
khara
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since September 2022
Posts: 1,980
|
Post by khara on May 4, 2023 17:52:07 GMT -5
vegasjames Well if you decide to cut some I hope you'll post some pics. I like these stones that are conglomerates and rhyolites and apparently amygdules. Stones with other stones in them. I always seem to like them.
|
|
|
|
Post by MsAli on May 6, 2023 6:07:27 GMT -5
Just wonderin’ what they called that stuff all over the shores up there before some guy started calling it galaxy stone. 
Leaverites |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2023 8:44:41 GMT -5
Just wonderin’ what they called that stuff all over the shores up there before some guy started calling it galaxy stone.
Leaverites I think your statement here calling amygdaloidal basalt "leaverite" really lacks insight into the world of rocks and minerals as there are many reasons to pick them up, cut them, collect them, look at them under the microscope and take photos. A good example of this would be this amygdaloidal basalt and the clinoptilolite and I extracted and took this photo of. Would you still call this leaverite? |
|
|
|
Post by Son Of Beach on May 6, 2023 9:32:20 GMT -5
What if I was to just try and rename thundereggs because I felt like it? It is after all just a common name for lithophysae but it is widely accepted at this point.
I mean, there is a little bit of irony with this statement. The fact that it's widely accepted is pretty telling that sometime a rename is more valuable than the original, in the case off thundereggs, for example.
I understand vegasjames argument on his disdain for Chrysocolla, I've seen him correct new users and probably old (myself included) a dozen times so I'm imagining him whistling thru his teeth every time he has to point out the distinction.
However...
You can argue that if a type of stone (lets say Galaxy Stone) becomes popular enough by real rock enthusiasts or amateurs alike, it will help add to the their knowledge on a particular piece and lead them to investigate further and learn about the history and nature of the makeup of the rock. 1dave Has a book on thundereggs, which I think you picked up a copy. Lithophysae doesn't sound near as sexy. I think some names roll off the tongue better than others and it's kind of humorous to me that it would upset anyone.
I believe MsAli knows the value in rocks. I'm sure she has her reasons for naming Amygdaloidal basalt as one of those as it doesn't suit her collecting needs and is easily categorized as "leaverites"
The green and black rock on the right I call "Betty Green Eyes" I know that's not the real name for the rock, but for me it works and it's what I think of everytime I find it. It has nothing to due with needing it to catch on or to recreate the wheel or upset the universe of rock and mineral nomenclature. Just a silly name for a pretty rock. BUT, finding it interesting has lead me to investigate it's nature more and I now know it's likely olivine in basalt. I don't want to call it that, but it's nice to know.
I enjoy your enthusiasm and passion you have for rocks and minerals, and I've learned a ton from watching your videos. Just seems silly to me. Lots of things have been renamed over time or have place names that make more sense than the more descriptive and scientific name, without completely diminishing the value of the original in my opinion 
(I just woke up and it's raining and my day of beach combing is likely on hold, so in its place I'm left to argue about naming rocks rather than collect them  ) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2023 10:08:41 GMT -5
What if I was to just try and rename thundereggs because I felt like it? It is after all just a common name for lithophysae but it is widely accepted at this point.
I mean, there is a little bit of irony with this statement. The fact that it's widely accepted is pretty telling that sometime a rename is more valuable than the original, in the case off thundereggs, for example.
I understand vegasjames argument on his disdain for Chrysocolla, I've seen him correct new users and probably old (myself included) a dozen times so I'm imagining him whistling thru his teeth every time he has to point out the distinction.
However...
You can argue that if a type of stone (lets say Galaxy Stone) becomes popular enough by real rock enthusiasts or amateurs alike, it will help add to the their knowledge on a particular piece and lead them to investigate further and learn about the history and nature of the makeup of the rock. 1dave Has a book on thundereggs, which I think you picked up a copy. Lithophysae doesn't sound near as sexy. I think some names roll off the tongue better than others and it's kind of humorous to me that it would upset anyone.
I believe MsAli knows the value in rocks. I'm sure she has her reasons for naming Amygdaloidal basalt as one of those as it doesn't suit her collecting needs and is easily categorized as "leaverites"
The green and black rock on the right I call "Betty Green Eyes" I know that's not the real name for the rock, but for me it works and it's what I think of everytime I find it. It has nothing to due with needing it to catch on or to recreate the wheel or upset the universe of rock and mineral nomenclature. Just a silly name for a pretty rock. BUT, finding it interesting has lead me to investigate it's nature more and I now know it's likely olivine in basalt. I don't want to call it that, but it's nice to know.
I enjoy your enthusiasm and passion you have for rocks and minerals, and I've learned a ton from watching your videos. Just seems silly to me. Lots of things have been renamed over time or have place names that make more sense than the more descriptive and scientific name, without completely diminishing the value of the original in my opinion
(I just woke up and it's raining and my day of beach combing is likely on hold, so in its place I'm left to argue about naming rocks rather than collect them ) I don't think anyone is upset over anything, I'm certainly not. If someone wants to rename something there is nothing stopping them from doing so and similarly there is nothing stopping someone from being critical of it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on such subjects and I think I have made a solid case for not renaming things because you just feel like it when their name is a widely known and accepted descriptive name already. I'm glad you have enjoyed the videos. |
|
|
|
Post by 1dave on May 6, 2023 12:59:38 GMT -5
I'm the only one that is RIGHT! Everyone else is always wrong!  So say we all! Reminds me of HADACOL. THEY HAD TO CALL IT SOMETHING! |
|
rockbrain
Cave Dweller 
Member since January 2022
Posts: 3,172
|
Post by rockbrain on May 6, 2023 22:59:14 GMT -5
I agree that a lot of the naming is obnoxious, but before we throw Taylor under the bus have we determined that there is a common accepted name for this stone? If so what? It looks like it contains a half a dozen different minerals in a conglomerate. I'm sure Galaxy stone is easier to say. I think a lot of geologist are annoyed by a lot of the names rockhounds use. I had one tell me if it's not gold silver or platinum it's just overburden!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2023 7:54:46 GMT -5
I agree that a lot of the naming is obnoxious, but before we throw Taylor under the bus have we determined that there is a common accepted name for this stone? If so what? It looks like it contains a half a dozen different minerals in a conglomerate. I'm sure Galaxy stone is easier to say. I think a lot of geologist are annoyed by a lot of the names rockhounds use. I had one tell me if it's not gold silver or platinum it's just overburden! I don't think anyone is throwing anyone under a bus.
When it comes to basalt, which is a subject I am very familiar with living in eastern Washington we do not use any common names for it and the formations of it. Columnar basalt and vesicular basalt...etc. being two of the more common terms used for different kinds of basalt out here, we word it as such because you can also have columnar andesite.
Amygdaloidal basalt by its very definition is the best descriptive words for basalt containing amygdaloidal 'nodules' of calcite, agate, chalcedony or zeolite group minerals.
At some point words and common names for rocks get baked into the lexicon of a group of people. Ill use the thunderegg as an example of this. By the 1950's the word thunderegg was in wide use as the common name lithophysae. How many people here were involved in rockhounding 80 years ago and remember a time before its usage was printed widely in things such as the OreBin and other publications? I would say none and that its is very much so part of common verbiage and when you say thunderegg people know what you're talking about and in turn there is no point in changing it.
It sounds like that geologist was a bit dismissive and lacked nuanced insight into the world of minerals to state that. Lot's of people are dismissive of things they don't really understand and it often shows by calling things "leaverite"...etc.
On a personal level I get very annoyed with this whole galaxy stone crap. As someone who lives in an ocean of basalt and loves to study zeolites, make videos about zeolites, visit historically significant zeolites localities, collect them and mount them. Often I will get people leaving comments on my videos where I refer to something as "amygdaloidal basalt" trying to have a gotcha moment or something and correct me by saying something to the effect of "actually its called a galaxy stone". I get enough of these to where I have a text document on my computer with a canned response to this that I cut and paste as a reply.
I think it's perfectly acceptable for me to be mildly annoyed by the fact that Taylor started this trend of calling amygdaloidal basalt galaxy stone, its not accurate at all and people then parrot what he says to the point where they go out of their way to correct me who is actually saying the correct thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on May 7, 2023 8:48:11 GMT -5
I agree that a lot of the naming is obnoxious, but before we throw Taylor under the bus have we determined that there is a common accepted name for this stone? If so what? It looks like it contains a half a dozen different minerals in a conglomerate. I'm sure Galaxy stone is easier to say. I think a lot of geologist are annoyed by a lot of the names rockhounds use. I had one tell me if it's not gold silver or platinum it's just overburden! I don't think anyone is throwing anyone under a bus.
When it comes to basalt, which is a subject I am very familiar with living in eastern Washington we do not use any common names for it and the formations of it. Columnar basalt and vesicular basalt...etc. being two of the more common terms used for different kinds of basalt out here, we word it as such because you can also have columnar andesite.
Amygdaloidal basalt by its very definition is the best descriptive words for basalt containing amygdaloidal 'nodules' of calcite, agate, chalcedony or zeolite group minerals.
At some point words and common names for rocks get baked into the lexicon of a group of people. Ill use the thunderegg as an example of this. By the 1950's the word thunderegg was in wide use as the common name lithophysae. How many people here were involved in rockhounding 80 years ago and remember a time before its usage was printed widely in things such as the OreBin and other publications? I would say none and that its is very much so part of common verbiage and when you say thunderegg people know what you're talking about and in turn there is no point in changing it.
It sounds like that geologist was a bit dismissive and lacked nuanced insight into the world of minerals to state that. Lot's of people are dismissive of things they don't really understand and it often shows by calling things "leaverite"...etc.
On a personal level I get very annoyed with this whole galaxy stone crap. As someone who lives in an ocean of basalt and loves to study zeolites, make videos about zeolites, visit historically significant zeolites localities, collect them and mount them. Often I will get people leaving comments on my videos where I refer to something as "amygdaloidal basalt" trying to have a gotcha moment or something and correct me by saying something to the effect of "actually its called a galaxy stone". I get enough of these to where I have a text document on my computer with a canned response to this that I cut and paste as a reply.
I think it's perfectly acceptable for me to be mildly annoyed by the fact that Taylor started this trend of calling amygdaloidal basalt galaxy stone, its not accurate at all and people then parrot what he says to the point where they go out of their way to correct me who is actually saying the correct thing.
Since you know a lot about basalt, I have a question I was thinking about the other day that I keep wondering about and maybe you can answer. So we know that obsidian is a volcanic glass, and glasses are formed from a very rapid cooling that prevents crystal formation. Even metals can be made in to metallic glasses by cooling them from a molten state rapidly enough. So, what I recall from what we were taught in school the lava get thrown from the volcano causing it to rapidly cool forming obsidian, and I guess flows could possibly be cooled rapidly enough such as under an ice cap or something to form obsidian. We also know that water is a much more efficient and faster heat transfer than air. Therefore, if lava flying through the air can form obsidian as we were taught in school then why doesn't lava from volcanic eruptions underwater form obsidian as the water theoretically should cool the lava faster than air? Instead, in Hawaii they end up with pillow basalt instead and the only volcanic glass I am aware of formed in Hawaii is Pele's hair. |
|
rockbrain
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2022
Posts: 3,172
|
Post by rockbrain on May 7, 2023 8:56:42 GMT -5
Fair enough, and obviously you're allowed to be annoyed about anything you want and I certainly won't try to talk you out of that. I think I'm just on a little different level with it. (Might even be referred to as "whishy-whashy") I don't like a lot of the tradenames. I don't like things rhyolite being called jasper, I can't tell you how many times I've tried to set the record straight on "Moonstones" from Moonstone Beach.. I certainly don't like people calling slag glass Andora crystals. I do like being able to tell a lot of moss agates apart (is that even an agate?) that should probably all be called the same thing, but they get carried away with that too. I think having some common names for something like amygdaloidal basalt bearing celadonite and other minerals helps bring people into the hobby. I can understand being annoyed by that but a lot of folks just want to enjoy rocks and not learn all the science. I think the geologist I referred to was being a bit tongue in cheek, but he also may have become annoyed with constantly trying to correct people and explain things. I don't think his statement was from a lack of understanding. It was more about what was important to him. For me, the most annoying thing is the people that insist they have the ID and are just wrong. I try not to be too annoyed because I know it will continue and probably get worse. I'm also in the aquarium hobby. No one refers to the fish by their real names and if you do, most have no idea what youre talking about.
The microscope picture is beautiful but it's not something most people are going to do or see in real life. I've done a bit of photography and have taken absolutely beautiful pictures of garbage. Won a contest with one. I still consider the broken glass that I took a pic of as leaverite, although I didn't leave it, I put it in the trash after I was done. Now that I think about it, maybe I should have called it Andora Crystals.
BTW, I have also enjoyed your videos and have been impressed with your depth of knowledge and your ability to convey it to others.
Interesting conversation, can I assume that you would have been annoyed by calling lithophysae thundereggs if you had been active in the field when that started?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2023 9:13:11 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is throwing anyone under a bus. When it comes to basalt, which is a subject I am very familiar with living in eastern Washington we do not use any common names for it and the formations of it. Columnar basalt and vesicular basalt...etc. being two of the more common terms used for different kinds of basalt out here, we word it as such because you can also have columnar andesite. Amygdaloidal basalt by its very definition is the best descriptive words for basalt containing amygdaloidal 'nodules' of calcite, agate, chalcedony or zeolite group minerals. At some point words and common names for rocks get baked into the lexicon of a group of people. Ill use the thunderegg as an example of this. By the 1950's the word thunderegg was in wide use as the common name lithophysae. How many people here were involved in rockhounding 80 years ago and remember a time before its usage was printed widely in things such as the OreBin and other publications? I would say none and that its is very much so part of common verbiage and when you say thunderegg people know what you're talking about and in turn there is no point in changing it. It sounds like that geologist was a bit dismissive and lacked nuanced insight into the world of minerals to state that. Lot's of people are dismissive of things they don't really understand and it often shows by calling things "leaverite"...etc. On a personal level I get very annoyed with this whole galaxy stone crap. As someone who lives in an ocean of basalt and loves to study zeolites, make videos about zeolites, visit historically significant zeolites localities, collect them and mount them. Often I will get people leaving comments on my videos where I refer to something as "amygdaloidal basalt" trying to have a gotcha moment or something and correct me by saying something to the effect of "actually its called a galaxy stone". I get enough of these to where I have a text document on my computer with a canned response to this that I cut and paste as a reply. I think it's perfectly acceptable for me to be mildly annoyed by the fact that Taylor started this trend of calling amygdaloidal basalt galaxy stone, its not accurate at all and people then parrot what he says to the point where they go out of their way to correct me who is actually saying the correct thing.
Since you know a lot about basalt, I have a question I was thinking about the other day that I keep wondering about and maybe you can answer. So we know that obsidian is a volcanic glass, and glasses are formed from a very rapid cooling that prevents crystal formation. Even metals can be made in to metallic glasses by cooling them from a molten state rapidly enough. So, what I recall from what we were taught in school the lava get thrown from the volcano causing it to rapidly cool forming obsidian, and I guess flows could possibly be cooled rapidly enough such as under an ice cap or something to form obsidian. We also know that water is a much more efficient and faster heat transfer than air. Therefore, if lava flying through the air can form obsidian as we were taught in school then why doesn't lava from volcanic eruptions underwater form obsidian as the water theoretically should cool the lava faster than air? Instead, in Hawaii they end up with pillow basalt instead and the only volcanic glass I am aware of formed in Hawaii is Pele's hair. There are other volcanic glasses other than obsidian, such as tachylite.
People will often call all volcanic glasses obsidian which is not correct. Obsidian flows have a high content of silica and a high viscosity which means they cool over very fast. Lava cooling in the air does not become obsidian.
If you just take normal basaltic lava and dump it in water you do get a volcanic glass, just not obsidian. ![]()  (examples of pillow basalt in NE Washington)  (Example of volcanic glass formed from basalt contacting water) (Example of rapid cooling. The brown is palagonite, then glassy tachylite and then basalt) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2023 9:40:16 GMT -5
Fair enough, and obviously you're allowed to be annoyed about anything you want and I certainly won't try to talk you out of that. I think I'm just on a little different level with it. (Might even be referred to as "whishy-whashy") I don't like a lot of the tradenames. I don't like things rhyolite being called jasper, I can't tell you how many times I've tried to set the record straight on "Moonstones" from Moonstone Beach.. I certainly don't like people calling slag glass Andora crystals. I do like being able to tell a lot of moss agates apart (is that even an agate?) that should probably all be called the same thing, but they get carried away with that too. I think having some common names for something like amygdaloidal basalt bearing celadonite and other minerals helps bring people into the hobby. I can understand being annoyed by that but a lot of folks just want to enjoy rocks and not learn all the science. I think the geologist I referred to was being a bit tongue in cheek, but he also may have become annoyed with constantly trying to correct people and explain things. I don't think his statement was from a lack of understanding. It was more about what was important to him. For me, the most annoying thing is the people that insist they have the ID and are just wrong. I try not to be too annoyed because I know it will continue and probably get worse. I'm also in the aquarium hobby. No one refers to the fish by their real names and if you do, most have no idea what youre talking about. The microscope picture is beautiful but it's not something most people are going to do or see in real life. I've done a bit of photography and have taken absolutely beautiful pictures of garbage. Won a contest with one. I still consider the broken glass that I took a pic of as leaverite, although I didn't leave it, I put it in the trash after I was done. Now that I think about it, maybe I should have called it Andora Crystals. BTW, I have also enjoyed your videos and have been impressed with your depth of knowledge and your ability to convey it to others. Interesting conversation, can I assume that you would have been annoyed by calling lithophysae thundereggs if you had been active in the field when that started? I'm not perfect and I don't expect anyone else to be with what you call things but I do expect people to put in a little bit of effort and that little bit in my opinion should be making an attempt to progress and learn over time, especially when pointed out that something you're saying might not be accurate. I would also add that if you're are in a position of educating people via YouTube you should hold yourself to a higher standard since people will repeat the things you say like it or not.
I 100% agree with you that the images under the microscope are something that isn't for most people but I also think it doesn't really need to be that way as it opens up a whole new world of things to be looked at and enjoyed. With 6300+ minerals (many of which are tiny), making you an even larger number of rocks there is a whole tiny universe of minerals to be explored and enjoyed.
You bring up a good point. I'm not sure I would have been annoyed if I was around back then when thundereggs became the widely used name... It's possible that part of my annoyance here is that something is being actively renamed by a social media person, despite knowing better, having people point it to him and all while having all of the collective knowledge of humanity sitting in his pocket. We have never had greater access to this information and in turn there are less and less excuses for mistakes.
Then again maybe I'm just being a grump with this and everyone should be able to make up whatever they want for names anytime they like...
Also thank you very much! I really do enjoy making videos about rocks and minerals.
|
|
rockbrain
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2022
Posts: 3,172
|
Post by rockbrain on May 7, 2023 9:58:37 GMT -5
@currently Rockhounding I'm not much of a Youtube video watching guy and now that I think about it yours about the only videos about rocks that I've watched on there. Not sure how I came across them but I found them before you joined the forum and was happy when you started participating here. One of the things that stuck with me that I think you said was the more adamant someone was about their ID being correct the more likely they're wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2023 10:48:53 GMT -5
@currently Rockhounding I'm not much of a Youtube video watching guy and now that I think about it yours about the only videos about rocks that I've watched on there. Not sure how I came across them but I found them before you joined the forum and was happy when you started participating here. One of the things that stuck with me that I think you said was the more adamant someone was about their ID being correct the more likely they're wrong. It's human nature to want to put everything in a box and put a label on it, even if its just done mentally. I think a lot of people internalize this and when you state that their identification of something might be wrong they then take it personal and will act like you are attacking them since they have already mentally categorized an item.
The world of rocks and minerals is a very complex and there is no shortage of people willing to double down on something.
The hobby of identification is a unique one on to its own if you want to really get into it.
Sidenote, I really like this forum!
|
|
rockbrain
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2022
Posts: 3,172
|
Post by rockbrain on May 7, 2023 12:05:19 GMT -5
While we're on the subject, do you know what peanut obsidian actually is ? Cuz it sure as hell doesn't seem like obsidian!
|
|
|
|
Post by 1dave on May 7, 2023 14:07:14 GMT -5
Hello @currentlyrockhoundin, pleased to meet you! As I have just learned of your existence I did a little research. Isn't it interesting how we see what we focus on and all else fades into nothing? Focus on basalt and that is all we see. Focus on agate, and that is all we see. Something weird about the human mind. Names! Once we have a name we imagine we know all there is to know about that thing. Galaxy Stone? Yeah I KNOW ALL ABOUT THAT! Sheep. Yes, I know all about sheep, although I have never been around one. Agate. Yes, I know all about agates. I may have even touched one once. Amygdaloidal basalt.When South America pulled away from Africa, huge amounts of basalt spilled across Africa, Brazil and Uruguay. Where there was water in the ground under the flowing lava, it turned into steam and made bubbles in the basalt. Many of the bubbles were almond shaped, deriving the name of amygdala "Almond shaped." Wow! I have a name! Now I know know all about it! Reality is we know nothing! As the basalt cooled it shrank, fractured and hardened. The steam in the bubble turned back into water, creating a vacuum. Groundwater was sucked in, and began flowing through the bubbles. In time the water altered the black outer shell into green celadonite. As groundwater usually caries a lot of calcium, potassium and other easily soluble substances, the space may have been filled with that. So WHERE DID THE SILICA COME FROM? THAT IS WHAT MOST GEOLOGISTS STILL DON'T KNOW! Silica does not readily dissolve. BUT SHOCK WAVES from continents colliding, volcanic eruptions, impacts, earthquakes, landslides,shatter silica bonds in rocks, If water is around, it grabs onto those silica bonds and billions of tons of silica gel is created, flowing in the groundwater into whatever empty space is available. During those rare moments was when most agates were formed. Openings under rocks, space where fossils have dissolved away, gas pockets, thundereggs, whatever. But it is not done yet! it is still silica gel. Landslides tip rocks containing the silica gel "early agate," which re-forms by gravity into new layers, creating "Tilt Eggs." New groundwaters bring more gel, new layers with different elemental colors arrive. Old calcite deposits are removed and replaced with silica - Crazy Lace is born. Crazy Lace? Oh yes, I know that name, so obviously, I know all about it! |
|
|
|
Post by MsAli on May 7, 2023 19:21:50 GMT -5
I agree that a lot of the naming is obnoxious, but before we throw Taylor under the bus have we determined that there is a common accepted name for this stone? If so what? It looks like it contains a half a dozen different minerals in a conglomerate. I'm sure Galaxy stone is easier to say. I think a lot of geologist are annoyed by a lot of the names rockhounds use. I had one tell me if it's not gold silver or platinum it's just overburden! The name is Amyglodial Basalt. They are all over the shores of Lake Superior and probably the other Great Lakes as well. I remember being a child and seeing them and thinking they were cool, (they sometimes have sparkly pockets, which as a young rock nerd I loved) and everytime I went up there, I'd pick some up. They pretty much all became yard rocks. When I'd come back home to visit, I'd grab one or two. I've cut them and have cabbed a few, but they are a hit or miss Now, that I'm much older and don't pick up every little thing and have refined my tastes in rocks, I'll leave them on the shores. As far as galaxy stone, ill stick with it being a disservice to people learning rocks. There are already a bunch of "names" out there already that have people confused, we need IMO to be better at proper representation. |
|
|
|
Post by MsAli on May 7, 2023 19:24:01 GMT -5
While we're on the subject, do you know what peanut obsidian actually is ? Cuz it sure as hell doesn't seem like obsidian! Perlite, feldspar and I think hematite (I could be wrong on that) The "peanuts" I believe are the feldspar |
|
) 
