A broken tip, is it really that bad?

[JoshinMO]

I got this Etley while back, it's over 5 in. long,has great flaking,decent material but it's tumbled and missing the tip. I showed it to a "neighbor" and He liked seeing it I guess but, focuses on the missing tip. Kind of acts like it's worthless.
What's your opinion?

[Kyflintguy]

The beauty is in the eyes of the beholder Josh, and I think it's pretty cool! Maybe he was just jealous?  I wouldn't put much weight in your neighbors" critical analysis" , maybe he forgot these artifacts are thousands of years old?  They represent so much more than just monetary value, and the affect of a tip ding on grade or value.  :crazy: But I'm sure you understand that Josh, maybe your neighbor will too, someday!?!

[Havenhunter]

Josh, I would be thrilled to find something like that! Maybe your neighbor is "a glass half empty" kinda guy. It's a treasure, regardless.

[sailorjoe]

That is a beautiful piece you have there. Not worthless at all in any regards whether one is considering in for its artistic value, its scientific value, or its monetary value. And it ain't everyday that a guy finds a piece of that size in such good condition.

[Kyflintguy]

Havenhunter wrote:

Josh, I would be thrilled to find something like that! Maybe your neighbor is "a glass half empty" kinda guy. It's a treasure, regardless.

  I agree, I would be thrilled if I found that! You wouldn't be able to give me any amount of money for it. Your right some people's glasses are half empty.

[JoshinMO]

Kyflintguy wrote:

The beauty is in the eyes of the beholder Josh, and I think it's pretty cool! Maybe he was just jealous?  I wouldn't put much weight in your neighbors" critical analysis" , maybe he forgot these artifacts are thousands of years old?  They represent so much more than just monetary value, and the affect of a tip ding on grade or value.  :crazy: But I'm sure you understand that Josh, maybe your neighbor will too, someday!?!

He's kind of old and not interested. :dunno:  But that's ok, he's alright!

[greg blood]

Sweet find!! Josh.
If it was a surface find, pieces that quality are getting harder and harder to find.
Any piece I find is always worth more than a $Amount tagged to it!

[orari]

The collector worldview might have changed a great deal from the way it once was.  What am I babbling about?  Well, the collectors I grew up around were people born about 1909, and I remember clearly and unequivocally that they had a very different worldview about artifacts from what I see here on the forum.  I am not making any value judgements here---just telling it the way it was. 
My famous uncle (Malcolm Parker) grew up in Bethpage, Tennessee, in the early 20th century.  He and his brother (Robert) worked the farm fields all around the village as children.  Indeed, most of their Tennessee artifacts were found when they were children.  Unless I miss my guess, a 6-inch, authentic Lost Lake point in perfect condition (looking almost as if it were recently faked by a true master knapper) is a very rare find today.  They had scads of these kinds of points that they had just casually picked up in the fields while hoeing.  This was their average standard for a "good" artifact.  What you guys call perfect "field-grade" points were welcome.  However, any point that was broken or had some kind of minor flaw that deviated from absolute perfection was considered to be "junk."  My uncle had piles of imperfect points that were essentially junk piles---sort of makeshift wastebaskets---and they were treated that way too.  No one---and I do mean no one---ever picked up and saved unifacial tools.  They too were considered to be uninteresting junk.  In their worldview, the only acceptable artifact was the one that exhibited absolute perfection.  This was true among the other collectors I knew as well---up to about 1970.
I am not sure what was at work there, but I think the major difference in worldviews between then and now was the relative availability of points in plowed fields.  They went into freshly plowed fields and expected to find a perfect Clovis point because they had found 5 perfect ones there on previous occasions.  The standard was set by what was findable and how easily findable it was at that time in history.  Nowadays, I suspect many plowed fields have been collected and picked over so many times that broken points are about the only things still left and findable in any quantity---many of those may be points that were noticed long ago but not picked up and carried home by past collectors because they were junk.  I remember leaving broken points in the field the few times my uncle took me surface hunting with him.  In the current worldview, those broken or imperfect points are considered to be treasures---and you guys pick up unifacial tools and find them to be interesting. 
Different times.  Different collecting worldviews.

[CMD]

I'm pretty sure I pick stuff up in the fields that earlier generations saw, but left. I believe, at least in part, it's because I want a site assemblage with as little collector bias reflected in that assemblage as possible. So, if it's artifactual, and I recognize that, I want at least some examples of whatever crude artifact class it happens to be. And I'll collect them, things I'm sure earlier collectors might leave, like a chunk of utilized graphite say(filthy black stone!! :rolf: ).  It's about the site assemblage, not the quality of any single artifact found at that site.
I would not expect earlier generations to have approached that field the way I do. Archaeology was not as developed decades ago. Many collectors had no idea what a "type name" was. Woodland triangles, in New England they are called Levanna, were called "fishtails". I did not realize this until I saw an old timer friend(began hunting the fields I hunt in the 1920's) pick up a nice quartz Levanna and call it a fishtail. Well, that is what they look like, come to think of it   but, point being, archaeology? Nope, just interested in finding them. Of course, that's only one take. The old state archaeology clubs/societies were all started by other equally old timers, who were advancing the archaeology when there were no professionals working in this region. And making contributions that have lasted, such as our understanding of ceramic sequence.
I have put an assemblage together from a field that gave up things like a perfect pop eyed birdstone and more jasper points then I'll find in two lifetimes in this region. I'll tell ya, they didn't leave much, those old timers.   if the farmer had not plowed exceptionally deep for a few years, it would not have even been worth my time hunting I imagine.
Josh, not sure how to even respond to an attitude like that. That would be a prized find to me for its size alone. You can get as much out of this hobby as you want to put in.  People talk about "heartbreakers" all the time. I understand, but I don't sympathize. I really don't. "You got yourself a beautiful piece of prehistory there. Now stop your whinin "  is how I see "heartbreakers". I understand, but I do not sympathize.
It's about the site assemblage, not about the quality of any single artifact that came out of the site. The assemblage is where the story is, where the real value is. There will be a $$$ value, but you know that's not the value I refer to here. Obviously, this does not apply to store bought artifacts

[Hoss]

Josh nice big blade man and you should be proud of that one.
  Charlie we called triangles war points. and stemmed points were hunting points. then around the early to mid 70s I discovered some of Ritchie's works and learned proper names. I do not know if my Dad called them hunting and war points to keep it simple or just an old time habit. He found his first point in 1931. A lot of points were named well after that time.

[greg blood]

Hoss wrote:

Charlie we called triangles war points. and stemmed points were hunting points. then around the early to mid 70s I discovered some of Ritchie's works and learned proper names. I do not know if my Dad called them hunting and war points to keep it simple or just an old time habit. He found his first point in 1931. A lot of points were named well after that time.

Thanks for the reminiscence Hoss, I remember hearing those terms from some Old Timers, though I'm not very old. :lol:
That is one beauty of a 'WAR' point!

[LucasBMylks]

i would be really gutted if i had broke it Josh. really
but if it was already damaged ( and allowing for all damage it might have got due to farm work etc, which is a shame) thats just the journey it has taken to get to your loving care.
take a minted coin, it has gone nowhere if kept in a little box, but old ones you dig up have been having all kinds of adventures we can only guess at.
i think that is an awesome piece mate, maybe more so cause of the damage, maybe it was being used when it broke? what on? hmmmmm
thats the real history in an artefact, just my little opinion
LbM

[hvs]

CMD wrote:

I'm pretty sure I pick stuff up in the fields that earlier generations saw, but left. I believe, at least in part, it's because I want a site assemblage with as little collector bias reflected in that assemblage as possible. So, if it's artifactual, and I recognize that, I want at least some examples of whatever crude artifact class it happens to be. And I'll collect them, things I'm sure earlier collectors might leave, like a chunk of utilized graphite say(filthy black stone!! :rolf: ).  It's about the site assemblage, not the quality of any single artifact found at that site.
I would not expect earlier generations to have approached that field the way I do. Archaeology was not as developed decades ago. Many collectors had no idea what a "type name" was. Woodland triangles, in New England they are called Levanna, were called "fishtails". I did not realize this until I saw an old timer friend(began hunting the fields I hunt in the 1920's) pick up a nice quartz Levanna and call it a fishtail. Well, that is what they look like, come to think of it   but, point being, archaeology? Nope, just interested in finding them. Of course, that's only one take. The old state archaeology clubs/societies were all started by other equally old timers, who were advancing the archaeology when there were no professionals working in this region. And making contributions that have lasted, such as our understanding of ceramic sequence.
I have put an assemblage together from a field that gave up things like a perfect pop eyed birdstone and more jasper points then I'll find in two lifetimes in this region. I'll tell ya, they didn't leave much, those old timers.   if the farmer had not plowed exceptionally deep for a few years, it would not have even been worth my time hunting I imagine.
Josh, not sure how to even respond to an attitude like that. That would be a prized find to me for its size alone. You can get as much out of this hobby as you want to put in.  People talk about "heartbreakers" all the time. I understand, but I don't sympathize. I really don't. "You got yourself a beautiful piece of prehistory there. Now stop your whinin "  is how I see "heartbreakers". I understand, but I do not sympathize.
It's about the site assemblage, not about the quality of any single artifact that came out of the site. The assemblage is where the story is, where the real value is. There will be a $$$ value, but you know that's not the value I refer to here. Obviously, this does not apply to store bought artifacts

Right on CMD.. Josh, that would be one of my center pieces in a frame..

[CMD]

Hoss wrote:

Josh nice big blade man and you should be proud of that one.
  Charlie we called triangles war points. and stemmed points were hunting points. then around the early to mid 70s I discovered some of Ritchie's works and learned proper names. I do not know if my Dad called them hunting and war points to keep it simple or just an old time habit. He found his first point in 1931. A lot of points were named well after that time.

  I hear you. And people would tell me fields with lots of large triangles were the locations of battles! :dry:  :unsure:

[SDhunter]

I think its a beauty!