I think I found something which looks like an egg. Its hard like stone, and quite small. Its white, found on the sea shore after the storm, 2 days ago.
Thanks guys for help. My camera is really bad so the pictures are not perfect, but if you think
that this might be egg, I will try to do some more, closer and better images.
Well, from what we can see in your photos, it certainly looks to have suitable symmetry and shape for an (fossil) egg.
A fossil egg can be a fossil egg or it can be a cast. If the latter, there would be no shell to look for. There appears to be no shell in your specimen, hence if it is a fossil egg, it would likely be a cast.
But those cracks worry me. They are open (not mineral filled; veins), and they have delicate structure preserved at some of the edges - hence they are probably recent. They might have been caused by the storm smashing rocks about; they don't look like percussive damage, but that remains my best guess.
The slight indentation near one end is, I think, irrelevant; the internal structure it shows is of no consequence.
If there is a history of fossil eggs in the area, that would be worth pursuing.
In the absence of that knowledge, on balance, I think it is just a cobble or pebble (you don't tell us its size).
Don't be disheartened; keep looking.
I stumbled on this forum, now 2.5 years later, because I had a surprisingly similar find, measuring 3.8 cm wide, cm 5.5 long. I found it on a German flea market (...) between a dozen other fossils of various origin (that were certainly no fakes) which can all be found in Germany and/or in the UK, which probably belonged to a deceased person.
Mine looks so similar to the first one that I for a short moment thought it was the same specimen. With two specimens we are getting somewhere!
Is it a cast/fossil?
+ it is perfectly symmetrical
+ both eggs are the same size and shape, with a similar matter
+ both eggs have a plane cut face in the size that an air chamber would have
- material looks like gypsum plaster (little bubbles)
- surface is rough
Is it an egg shaped geological rarity?
+ surface is rough, not pressed at an eggshell
- egg shape very unmistakable
- similarity with the other specimen too good for a 'coincidental stone'
Is it a human-made object / is it a commercial fake?
+ of all eggsizes, it is the most familiar chicken egg size
+ of all colors, it has the familiar white-brown look
+ there is more than one
+ material looks like gypsum plaster (little bubbles)
+ a century ago plaster eggs were sold with real eggs to collectors
- it is more squished towards the end than a chicken egg or even a goose egg
- for mass selling to tourists it should be more perfect and not dirty
- it would also not have the 'plane cut'
It would be great if anyone could comment to this! Thanks!
A short comment; now I see the images in direct comparison; I start to doubt it is the same material...
However, in any case, similarities are remarkable:
- both what seems to be a missing part caused by an air chamber naturally in eggs
- both have a type of cracks that may origin when the material expands during solidification
- they have the same shape
Bear1's specimen seems to be smaller and to lack the air bubbles that mine has.
Welcome to NaturePlus.
I think they are plaster of paris fake eggs, as used by hen farmers to put in nests to encourage laying.
Such fake eggs have been made over the years in a range of accuracy regarding size, shape, colour, surface texture and weight. Apparently, hens are not that discerning because golf balls seem to work quite well!
Thank you for your reply. I tested your hypothesis.
At first I was unable to scratch the surface with my nails, and it didn't solve when I put it for 30 minutes in hot water. But when I found out that I could scratch it with a knife, I tried harder with my nails, and managed to make a scratch. So definitely gypsum, right? Solved.
Well, you did a lot of the ground work yourself; good thinking.
The hardness, relative to your finger nail (2-2.5), is indeed a good pointer, and it adds weight to our preferred ID. But personally, I would still treat it as a hypothesis.
Not concerning these specimens in particular...
Something else to look for when trying to decide if an object is man-made or natural...
A 'seam': a line going round the middle, due to the thing being made in two half-moulds.
There's a good example at the end of this page