Rocks & Minerals B/C 2017

[calvin102111]

Should I get some study guides? I'm planning on buying a couple of books recommended by the SciOly wiki for the summer. Thoughts?

I've never done the event before; I got the Peterson guide and it has worked great for me. I know the Smithsonian was a poor guide for Fossils and so will probably also be for R&M. Audubon was great in Fossils so that's probably also good for this.

Personally, I've been using the Audobon guide, but I have done a lot with rocks in the past as well.

[John Richardsim]

Should I get some study guides? I'm planning on buying a couple of books recommended by the SciOly wiki for the summer. Thoughts?

I've never done the event before; I got the Peterson guide and it has worked great for me. I know the Smithsonian was a poor guide for Fossils and so will probably also be for R&M. Audubon was great in Fossils so that's probably also good for this.

Yeah, I just got the Peterson guide today, and I like it. Its mineral section isn't too bad (lots of good info, organization of info is alright (not the best, but not terrible)). The rocks section for it it isn't the greatest (has some info, information for each rock is just in a block of text). When it comes to info that doesn't pertain to a specific rock/mineral, it has quite a bit, making it certainly a good reference for the general stuff.

I also got the Audubon guide today. Lots of good info, organization is okay. Haven't really looked through it for more general info yet, though.

When I competed back in 8th grade, I used the Smithsonian guide. While it certainly does not have as much info as the Peterson and Audubon, it does have good images on the pages (not just in separate sections like the Peterson and Audubon), making it good for if you haven't had much time with IDing (but seeing as how you are posting this in June, that shouldn't be a problem). I chose it over the Audubon as I liked the organization (each rock/mineral gets exactly one page; there was no "info for this mineral starts halfway down this page and ends three-quarters of the way down the next page" like there is in the Audubon and Peterson) (also, each rock/mineral has a box near the top of the page with important info listed briefly).

Even though we took the Smithsonian in competition, my partner used the Audubon extensively while making the binder. (As the old saying goes: "With enough time and effort, a binder can have more info/better organization than any commercially available field guide could ever have.")

[SenseiSushi]

Should I get some study guides? I'm planning on buying a couple of books recommended by the SciOly wiki for the summer. Thoughts?

I've never done the event before; I got the Peterson guide and it has worked great for me. I know the Smithsonian was a poor guide for Fossils and so will probably also be for R&M. Audubon was great in Fossils so that's probably also good for this.

Yeah, I just got the Peterson guide today, and I like it. Its mineral section isn't too bad (lots of good info, organization of info is alright (not the best, but not terrible)). The rocks section for it it isn't the greatest (has some info, information for each rock is just in a block of text). When it comes to info that doesn't pertain to a specific rock/mineral, it has quite a bit, making it certainly a good reference for the general stuff.

I also got the Audubon guide today. Lots of good info, organization is okay. Haven't really looked through it for more general info yet, though.

When I competed back in 8th grade, I used the Smithsonian guide. While it certainly does not have as much info as the Peterson and Audubon, it does have good images on the pages (not just in separate sections like the Peterson and Audubon), making it good for if you haven't had much time with IDing (but seeing as how you are posting this in June, that shouldn't be a problem). I chose it over the Audubon as I liked the organization (each rock/mineral gets exactly one page; there was no "info for this mineral starts halfway down this page and ends three-quarters of the way down the next page" like there is in the Audubon and Peterson) (also, each rock/mineral has a box near the top of the page with important info listed briefly).

Even though we took the Smithsonian in competition, my partner used the Audubon extensively while making the binder. (As the old saying goes: "With enough time and effort, a binder can have more info/better organization than any commercially available field guide could ever have.")

I used the Simon & Schuster field guide. The information in it was quite good and had a wide array of topics. Organization wasn't too bad and was pretty easy to use.

I have also used the Audubon field guide and in past experiences I sort of hated it (at least the edition I had). If I remember correctly, the Audubon guide has pages filled with only pictures (no info) of different rocks/minerals that were pretty much useless to me. I was never able to use it efficiently enough to justify taking it to competitions.

[dragonfruit35]

I've never done the event before; I got the Peterson guide and it has worked great for me. I know the Smithsonian was a poor guide for Fossils and so will probably also be for R&M. Audubon was great in Fossils so that's probably also good for this.

Yeah, I just got the Peterson guide today, and I like it. Its mineral section isn't too bad (lots of good info, organization of info is alright (not the best, but not terrible)). The rocks section for it it isn't the greatest (has some info, information for each rock is just in a block of text). When it comes to info that doesn't pertain to a specific rock/mineral, it has quite a bit, making it certainly a good reference for the general stuff.

I also got the Audubon guide today. Lots of good info, organization is okay. Haven't really looked through it for more general info yet, though.

When I competed back in 8th grade, I used the Smithsonian guide. While it certainly does not have as much info as the Peterson and Audubon, it does have good images on the pages (not just in separate sections like the Peterson and Audubon), making it good for if you haven't had much time with IDing (but seeing as how you are posting this in June, that shouldn't be a problem). I chose it over the Audubon as I liked the organization (each rock/mineral gets exactly one page; there was no "info for this mineral starts halfway down this page and ends three-quarters of the way down the next page" like there is in the Audubon and Peterson) (also, each rock/mineral has a box near the top of the page with important info listed briefly).

Even though we took the Smithsonian in competition, my partner used the Audubon extensively while making the binder. (As the old saying goes: "With enough time and effort, a binder can have more info/better organization than any commercially available field guide could ever have.")

I used the Simon & Schuster field guide. The information in it was quite good and had a wide array of topics. Organization wasn't too bad and was pretty easy to use.

I have also used the Audubon field guide and in past experiences I sort of hated it (at least the edition I had). If I remember correctly, the Audubon guide has pages filled with only pictures (no info) of different rocks/minerals that were pretty much useless to me. I was never able to use it efficiently enough to justify taking it to competitions.

I used the Audobon, Simon & Schuster and Smithsonian. The Simon & Schuster one was the most helpful, if I remember correctly.

[calvin102111]

Yeah, I just got the Peterson guide today, and I like it. Its mineral section isn't too bad (lots of good info, organization of info is alright (not the best, but not terrible)). The rocks section for it it isn't the greatest (has some info, information for each rock is just in a block of text). When it comes to info that doesn't pertain to a specific rock/mineral, it has quite a bit, making it certainly a good reference for the general stuff.

I also got the Audubon guide today. Lots of good info, organization is okay. Haven't really looked through it for more general info yet, though.

When I competed back in 8th grade, I used the Smithsonian guide. While it certainly does not have as much info as the Peterson and Audubon, it does have good images on the pages (not just in separate sections like the Peterson and Audubon), making it good for if you haven't had much time with IDing (but seeing as how you are posting this in June, that shouldn't be a problem). I chose it over the Audubon as I liked the organization (each rock/mineral gets exactly one page; there was no "info for this mineral starts halfway down this page and ends three-quarters of the way down the next page" like there is in the Audubon and Peterson) (also, each rock/mineral has a box near the top of the page with important info listed briefly).

Even though we took the Smithsonian in competition, my partner used the Audubon extensively while making the binder. (As the old saying goes: "With enough time and effort, a binder can have more info/better organization than any commercially available field guide could ever have.")

I used the Simon & Schuster field guide. The information in it was quite good and had a wide array of topics. Organization wasn't too bad and was pretty easy to use.

I have also used the Audubon field guide and in past experiences I sort of hated it (at least the edition I had). If I remember correctly, the Audubon guide has pages filled with only pictures (no info) of different rocks/minerals that were pretty much useless to me. I was never able to use it efficiently enough to justify taking it to competitions.

I used the Audobon, Simon & Schuster and Smithsonian. The Simon & Schuster one was the most helpful, if I remember correctly.

The Audubon has decent organization, but it does have the problem of separating pictures from information. It seems like you guys liked the Simon & Schuster guide, so maybe I'll check that one out. My Audubon is also a little bit destroyed

[Magikarpmaster629]

Don't know the location... (Click to Show Hidden Text)

1. Dolomite

Correct.

Answer to 1. (Click to Show Hidden Text)

Dolomite

Answer to 2. (Click to Show Hidden Text)

Italy

Shouldn't #1 be dolostone, as dolomite is a mineral?

[SenseiSushi]

Don't know the location... (Click to Show Hidden Text)

1. Dolomite

Correct.

Answer to 1. (Click to Show Hidden Text)

Dolomite

Answer to 2. (Click to Show Hidden Text)

Italy

Shouldn't #1 be dolostone, as dolomite is a mineral?

My bad. The formation is known as the Dolomites and I didn't do my research beforehand

[calvin102111]

Correct.

Answer to 1. (Click to Show Hidden Text)

Dolomite

Answer to 2. (Click to Show Hidden Text)

Italy

Shouldn't #1 be dolostone, as dolomite is a mineral?

My bad. The formation is known as the Dolomites and I didn't do my research beforehand

Ah, good point. Didn't even think about dolostone when I was answering.

[Magikarpmaster629]

I'll revive this...


1. ID both minerals

[John Richardsim]

I'll revive this...


1. ID both minerals

Fluorite and...uhhhhh...sphalerite? I mean, "sphalerite!"