8
DAE think shale is way more interesting than people give it credit for?
I've been rock hunting for a while now (it's my weekend hobby). Most folks I know go crazy for stuff like amethyst or agate, but I honestly get more from finding simple shale layers. They tell a clear story of old environments, like quiet water or muddy flats. Last month, I spotted some shale with tiny shell bits in it, and that beat any shiny rock for me. Am I the only one who feels this way about plain rocks? I'd love recommendations for spots to see good shale outcrops, or how to label them without ruining the natural look. Maybe there are other boring-seeming rocks I should learn to love.
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
piper_green961mo ago
No way, you found shale with shell bits and liked it more than a shiny rock? Most people I know would trade a dozen shale pieces for one decent agate. I once spent hours looking for quartz and almost missed a cool sedimentary layer because I was so focused on sparkly stuff. But you're right, shale does tell a story, and those shell bits are like little time capsules. For labeling, I use a small piece of painter's tape and a pencil, it peels off clean without messing up the rock.
5
seth_wells491mo ago
Wait, is labeling rocks actually necessary?
6
the_keith1mo ago
Honestly the way people skip over shale to chase shiny things is like ignoring a whole history book for the glittery cover. Piper's right about those shell bits being tiny time capsules, and Seth's labeling question misses the point when the rock itself is the label. I'll take a piece of shale that shows ancient mud over a pretty paperweight any day. Got any other plain rocks I'm probably walking past without a second look?
2