Dumb to arrowtips and such 1st one only one I've ever ran across

[Garguy]

So..... can anyone answer why it appears severely broken in the second to last pic?

[Tdog]

It looks like it broke along that little diagonal crack visible in the last pic. I'm thinking he fumbled it during the photo session.

[Garguy]

Maybe. I'm thinking that little crack is the edge of restoration.

[Atlantic City]

It looks like he was trying to delete the (probably dark) background and the editing program deleted some of the more deeply shadowed parts of the point too.

[Backfieldloop]

So..... can anyone answer why it appears severely broken in the second to last pic?

Just a edit of pictures for better viewpoint. I was trying that anyway. Not broken at all. Photo editor and erase oblect cut in half to be specific of pic yall are discussing. I never was the fumbling type and sure had many opportunities at it! However if you were to say broken,hopin non arrowhead finding with 100+hrs in creek last month low i.q. moron! Yep that's me! Lol 😆

[Backfieldloop]

These pictures are posdibly more informative. With my + 84 i.q. and all its glory i understand completely that there will be differences in opinion even at top levels and was in no way throwing shit at any opinion ive gotten on here! Just to be clear! It was just surprising or has been the case of split opinions! Research i can and do alot of i live in what im hobbying at the moment!

Hella fellas,ladies.
. My name is Joe, I typically detect relics but to many ditchwalker videos put my butt in the creek for alot of hours back mid March daily and after many days I basically tripped over this thing and I'm on no knowledge on arrowheads. I've spent many hours analyzing interweb photos and have opinions but I don't like dealing in opinions or speaking as I'd I know when I don't for sure. What do yall think type,age,worth, is it a thing folks would seek or I should just cherish!? Id love many many view points and or educated opinion on those questions above. Thanks in advance,be safe

[Backfieldloop]

Like you said, you’re new to this. Typology is not a piece of cake. There is no definitive source. There are regional typology guides. It’s not a problem. It’s something we all live with. When you deal with surface finds, you deal with artifacts that are completely out of context. When ID is easy, so be it. When it’s not, different opinions are offered. I have 60+ years surface collecting, mostly in RI. I believe I’m stumped all the time, I’m sure I make mistakes. All kinds of things can factor in. What do I know about the site where it was found? What cultural levels seem to be represented at the site I’m surfacing hunting, and have hunted for years? What is the lithic used with this point? Looks like a Neville, but wait, it’s made of quartz, quartz was never used for Neville points, must be a different type. It’s been resharpened, what did it look like when it was at first stage, and not yet resharpened? One type can start to look like a different type through resharpening.

Some, like Jeff Boudreau, when he created our New England typology, was very exacting, and depended very much on the metrics he determined would apply to certain types. Things like the range of angles exhibited by a corner notch! Very few of us know our types so well, that we can just use metrics and solve every point type we puzzle over. But, what it is is not “a problem”, as you seem to feel. And with certain types, unless you find them in a controlled excavation, with exact context, one may simply not know if one has found a Vosburg, or a Brewerton Eared Notched, just to mention two types that can be hard, even impossible, to distinguish as surface finds. 10 guys can’t agree? It’s not a problem. It comes with the territory.

Thanks for wide view,makes good sense! The part of the story of surface finds and all the variables that could play a role is nuff said and needed info for the plebs!