Calymene blumenbachii “Dudley Bug / Locust” from Wenlock Limestone, Wren’s Nest, Dudley, U.K.

[GTS]

Happy birthday to me! Recently acquired this nice C. blumenbachii excavated in 19th C - early 20th C. by a Wren’s Nest quarryman when Wren’s Nest was active. Nice patina from 100+ years of being handled. Photos taken in sunlight & artificial light. The trilobite measures 50mm. 
Also attached - a nice paper “Legacy of the Locust - Dudley and its famous trilobite Calymene blumenbachii” detailing the history of this species. 
the trilobite was unique in that it was also featured on the town’s coat of arms. The specimen is ex John Page who was an avid collector of trilobites in the U.K

 

.Legacy of the Locust Dudley & its famous trilobite Calymene blumenbachii.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bobby Rico]

Happy Birthday and that’s a rare to purchase or find now the    “Dudley Bug “  . I have only found a cephalon.  

[grandpa]

Indeed, Happy B-Day.  What an historic and magnificent acquisition. 

[jpc]

Nice find.  Happy Bday.  But wow... 40 pictures....

[GTS]

1 hour ago, jpc said:

Nice find.  Happy Bday.  But wow... 40 pictures....

Thankyou and apologies - I’d inadvertently selected all photos for uploading. Some photos now deleted. 

[Wrangellian]

Happy day, nice acquisition! I thought it looked fake at first glance, but all the years of oily fingers would explain that.

[Wrangellian]

16 hours ago, GTS said:

thankyou  yes it’s real enough. These old specimens often have this patina. I’ve compared those with other specimens with same provenance and age. 

I've got 2 or 3 ammonites that aren't nearly as long in circulation but they've already got an obvious sheen from me and/or previous owners handling them.

I wonder if a dunk in acetone would remove that and make it look more freshly-dug, or would it just ruin the eye-appeal... 

[Tidgy's Dad]

Lovely.

Happy birthday.

[GTS]

@Wrangellian I understand having a “freshly dug look” appeal but in this bug’s case, the patina adds to the authenticity of provenance of the piece (also part of the history of the specimen) as having been collected from Wrens Nest 100+ years ago and since spent years being handled in smokey rooms back in the day.

I would personally leave your ammonites as they are, the patina show their age since being excavated - especially if the location is now inaccessible or closed, etc (the patina proves that they’re not recently excavated).
 

On 4/20/2023 at 1:25 AM, Wrangellian said:

I've got 2 or 3 ammonites that aren't nearly as long in circulation but they've already got an obvious sheen from me and/or previous owners handling them.

I wonder if a dunk in acetone would remove that and make it look more freshly-dug, or would it just ruin the eye-appeal... 

 

[Bobby Rico]

1 hour ago, GTS said:

I understand having a “freshly dug look” appeal but in this bug’s case, the patina adds to the authenticity of provenance of the piece (also part of the history of the specimen) as having been collected from Wrens Nest 100+ years ago

Some fossil that was collected many years ago age and exhibit darker, richer hues as this bug has. Did it come with its original label? 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Bobby Rico

[GTS]

@Bobby Rico No original label - but it’s obvious it’s what it is. It’s from an old U.K. collector (John Page) who acquired it from some old time quarryman’s family in Dudley. Page used to put “want to buy” ads in the Dudley local paper scouting for bugs.

 

Depending on how often specimens were handled and if stored / displayed in a smoky room, there will be differences in patina colour, etc between specimens.  Lighting differences can also account for colour variation, here’s another photo in which my specimen looks darker. Also here is a photo showing the underside - the Wenlock limestone base has been darkened and smoothed over from many years of being handled, etc.

 

2 hours ago, Bobby Rico said:

Some fossil that was collected many years ago age and exhibit darker, richer hues as this bug has. Did it come with its original label? 

 

[GTS]

@Bobby Rico see photo of Victorian specimen below for comparison of patina colour (copied here for info). Very similar to mine.

 

 

Below image from:

Lawrence, P., Stammers, S. 2014

Trilobites of the World: An Atlas of 1000 Photographs.

Siri Scientific Press, 416 pp.

[Bobby Rico]

3 hours ago, GTS said:

No original label - but it’s obvious it’s what it is. It’s from an old U.K. collector (John Page) who acquired it from some old time quarryman’s family in Dudley. Page used to put “want to buy” ads in the Dudley local paper scouting for bugs.

I like old labels that is all . Cheers Bobby 

[Wrangellian]

12 hours ago, GTS said:

@Wrangellian I understand having a “freshly dug look” appeal but in this bug’s case, the patina adds to the authenticity of provenance of the piece (also part of the history of the specimen) as having been collected from Wrens Nest 100+ years ago and since spent years being handled in smokey rooms back in the day.

I would personally leave your ammonites as they are, the patina show their age since being excavated - especially if the location is now inaccessible or closed, etc (the patina proves that they’re not recently excavated).

That's true.. never thought of that. I like patina on old musical instruments, antiques, etc, but I wondered if oils from people's hands could be detrimental to the fossil at all, but I guess if these have lasted that long it's probably no problem. (Also does it not obscure any fine surface detail that might exist? -which of course is also a judgment call as to how you want your fossil to look)

Edited April 22, 2023 by Wrangellian

[GTS]

14 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

That's true.. never thought of that. I like patina on old musical instruments, antiques, etc, but I wondered if oils from people's hands could be detrimental to the fossil at all, but I guess if these have lasted that long it's probably no problem. (Also does it not obscure any fine surface detail that might exist? -which of course is also a judgment call as to how you want your fossil to look)

The finer surface details on my bug, e.g. facial sutures on the cephalon do not appear to have suffered from 100+ years of being handled, etc as they are still easily visible - so I’d say that 100+ years of handling hasn’t been detrimental to the fossil. The only visible surface aspect that has “changed” is the colour. 

[Wrangellian]

...and the added gloss.  I was thinking of really fine surface details maybe finer than the sutures (if any - I'm having trouble finding any clear up-close photos of similar bugs to see if there were) so the gloss in this case may be no problem, but gloss is something that we generally advise people to avoid when they ask "should I add shellac (or etc) to my fossil to protect it?" because the glare from a glossy coat can make it difficult to photograph fine surface detail if there is any. Not that I'm recommending you try to remove the oils from your trilobite, I'm just saying!

[GTS]

13 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

...and the added gloss.  I was thinking of really fine surface details maybe finer than the sutures (if any - I'm having trouble finding any clear up-close photos of similar bugs to see if there were) so the gloss in this case may be no problem, but gloss is something that we generally advise people to avoid when they ask "should I add shellac (or etc) to my fossil to protect it?" because the glare from a glossy coat can make it difficult to photograph fine surface detail if there is any. Not that I'm recommending you try to remove the oils from your trilobite, I'm just saying!

 Ah I see. Shellac is essentially a varnish (a clear liquid which then solidfies post-application, effectively a "transparent paint") a layer of which would sit on top of the fossil surface and infill finer depressions, etc which would then obscure them. I've compared my Victorian bug with other more recently recovered (and "fresher") examples (in my collection) and there's no discernable differences in observable surface detail. Only difference is colour.
The patina is just from surface colour change (staining? slight oxidation? remember that CaCO3 is slightly porous) - not from the application of a layer of additional material placed on top of fossil surface, Patination will take place in a similar manner in which antique wood or leather (or marble gravestones) change colour over time.
 
Do a google image search for trilobite legs or pleurae, it can be seen that these fine features can be distinguished from the surrounding matrix by patination / colour changes - these would almost certainly be obliterated by the application of shellac / varnish. Also, look at the Burgess Shale fossils, very fine features not obscured by patina / colour differences but would be destroyed by the application of a varnish. 

[Wrangellian]

10 hours ago, GTS said:

 Ah I see. Shellac is essentially a varnish (a clear liquid which then solidfies post-application, effectively a "transparent paint") a layer of which would sit on top of the fossil surface and infill finer depressions, etc which would then obscure them. I've compared my Victorian bug with other more recently recovered (and "fresher") examples (in my collection) and there's no discernable differences in observable surface detail. Only difference is colour.
The patina is just from surface colour change (staining? slight oxidation? remember that CaCO3 is slightly porous) - not from the application of a layer of additional material placed on top of fossil surface, Patination will take place in a similar manner in which antique wood or leather (or marble gravestones) change colour over time.
 
Do a google image search for trilobite legs or pleurae, it can be seen that these fine features can be distinguished from the surrounding matrix by patination / colour changes - these would almost certainly be obliterated by the application of shellac / varnish. Also, look at the Burgess Shale fossils, very fine features not obscured by patina / colour differences but would be destroyed by the application of a varnish. 

Well in any case your fossil is obviously more glossy than a freshly-dug example, and I have to wonder what caused that. Yes, chemical reactions would cause the colour to change, but the gloss must have been caused by either the rubbing/wearing away of any fine surface detail that might have been present (must have been present unless your trilobite was originally that shiny - was it?), or by the addition of material from people's fingers that filled pores and other fine surface irregularities - or most likely a combination of both. To me, it seems unavoidable that a fine layer of something (oils plus whatever else might stick to them) would be built up over time from repeated handling, not to the thickness of a coat of varnish, but enough to make it appear glossy, as well as the color change which is chemical. If you were to remove the oils, the gloss would disappear, but the color would not (I don't think). Again, not suggesting that you try this... just thinking out loud.

I would never want a Burgess fossil to be handled by oily fingers either!

[Bobby Rico]

To me this bug has been on display for a very long time . It has now become discoloured  by age and this is definitely part of its charm . It may have be vanished with shellac or egg and plant gum mixture ( I don’t think it has been varnished ). This wold have been added to protect it but now the vanished would have yellowed over time .  If it was displayed openly in a room and not kept under glass it will have most likely been in contact with oils from handling  , sunlights, dirt and smoke open fires and tobacco both of which also can deposit oils . Even under glass this still would happen but a lot less. It has aged like an old oil painting but you may well restore a painting’s vibrancy in my opinion the bug is beautiful as it is and should just be left alone and place on display and enjoyed.  In the famous old  saying “don’t fix what is not broken”.  Cheers Bobby 

Edited April 24, 2023 by Bobby Rico

[GTS]

1 hour ago, Bobby Rico said:

To me this bug has been on display for a very long time . It has now become discoloured  by age and this is definitely part of its charm . It may have be vanished with shellac or egg and plant gum mixture ( I don’t think it has been varnished ). This wold have been added to protect it but now the vanished would have yellowed over time .  If it was displayed openly in a room and not kept under glass it will have most likely been in contact with oils from handling  , sunlights, dirt and smoke open fires and tobacco both of which also can deposit oils . Even under glass this still would happen but a lot less. It has aged like an old oil painting but you may well restore a painting’s vibrancy in my opinion the bug is beautiful as it is and should just be left alone and place on display and enjoyed.  In the famous old  saying “don’t fix what is not broken”.  Cheers Bobby 

 

Thankyou Bobby I've inspected the bug closely (and compared it with more recently excavated C. blumenbachii specimens elsewhere and in my collection) and there's no evidence of any application of shellac or varnish or similar of any kind.  Finer surface details such as facial sutures and the boundaries between the pleurae (and the boundary between the fossil and the matrix) do not have anything infilling them (as a layer of shellac or similar would) - so no shellac or varnish etc has been applied. In addition, old shellac / varnish often peels or cracks after many years - there's none of this peeling.

To add to @Wrangellian 's thoughts, freshly excavated and prepped Wren's Nest (the location of which I've visited a few times) fossils do indeed have a grey "shine" or "sheen" to them which contrasts well with the dusty grey colour of the Wenlock Limestone matrix. As I've said, the colour of the bug is from years of being handled and on display in a smokey environment.

[Bobby Rico]

38 minutes ago, GTS said:

so no shellac or varnish etc has been applied.

FYI I use clear bees wax on my ammonites it does no harm but enhances the fossil, adds a little shine to them  but I do keep it of the matrix for contrast. You definitely don’t need to wax this I am just discussing what I consider the final stage of prepping . Waxing, varnish and lacquers have been used for a couple of hundred years and probably part of a lot of people’s tool box.

Edited April 24, 2023 by Bobby Rico

[Wrangellian]

To be clear, I never said this bug was deliberately coated in anything like varnish, only that it stands to reason that it would have a thin buildup of oils + whatever else, if it has been handled repeatedly over the years, which are not exactly desirable except for aesthetic reasons or for provenance... But looking at your pics again, it looks like the thing has been prepped by modern air tools. I see no sign of any matrix between in the recesses, plus the underside of the cephalon has been dug into. (Behind that looks like it was worked with the older methods, plus a bit of patina). Also, the gloss on the bug looks pretty uniform, equally obvious in the recesses, which could be the result of an air-abrasive treatment, plus possibly a coating of some sort...? If just a patina, I would think the glossy/oily appearance would mainly be on the outermost features, not evenly distributed all over. Do you know the full history of how the thing was treated/prepped in the past? I know that picture of the other Victorian specimen is said to be covered by patina, but it looks like it also has matrix in the recesses (hard to tell), so that makes sense there. Yours has the look of a fossil prepped by air abrasive, or by other means plus a coating of something.

Anyway, coatings of anything are fine if you are collecting decorative/conversation pieces, or if you're planning to let people such as schoolkids manhandle them regularly and they might wear quickly or fall apart without a protective coating. But for scientific purposes (if that is the direction you want to go in) coatings are not recommended if they can be avoided, and in most cases they can be avoided. If someone wants to take a good scientific photo of a fossil (as opposed to a picturebook photo), they would want to reduce glare from any glossy surfaces (whether natural or coated), which is done by applying a sublimate of ammonium chloride from a puffer - and that presupposes a bare, uncoated surface. (It is only a temporary coating, and evaporates again when heated). This masks any color differences and enhances the contours only. Of course most fossils in our collections are never going to be photographed for a scientific paper, especially ones as well-studied as Dudley bugs, so you'll probably never have reason to clean/strip this fossil.

Edited April 25, 2023 by Wrangellian

[Kane]

Congratulations on this iconic acquisition, and a lovely example that I confess makes me a little jealous.  

[Bobby Rico]

I agree with Kane probably one of best I have seen here. Also most know I love fossil from old collections especially if they have the copper plate text labels. It is like fossil has dual history.  Cheers Bobby 

[FossilDAWG]

Congratulations on this iconic and beautiful fossil.  As Bobby says, the history (patina and all!) just adds to the allure of the piece.  You did well to acquire this special fossil.

 

I have one that I collected at Wrens Nest back around the late 1990s, but it is not nearly as nice and needs some involved prep work.  It is complete but flattened and partially disarticulated, and the cephalon needs to be flipped as it is upside down.  Still, an iconic fossil from an iconic site, and I count myself lucky to have found it.  It is a much lighter brown than yours.

 

Don