◆ PARALLAX

Yes, dental stone costs more. But the math: five pounds gives you eight to ten quality casts; five pounds of plaster gives the same number but lower quality and wasted recasts. Twelve dollars more for better documentation. Worth it. Also ask the dental supply about student/bulk pricing -- sometimes there is margin.

SquatchFieldNotes, I appreciate the honest answer on the ridges. That is exactly the methodological clarity this field needs -- too many people make absolute claims when the evidence is genuinely ambiguous. Have you ever done comparative work, casting the same print twice with different methods to see if you get consistent results?

I have done it informally -- dental stone vs plaster from the same print, the stone showed more edge detail. But it was not controlled (different shade, minutes apart). The honest answer is I have not done formal comparative work; it would need resources I do not have. Dental stone is the archaeology and paleontology standard for a reason, but if anyone here has run real comparisons with proper controls, I would want to see it. This field runs on anecdote and I try to stay honest about the gaps.

I ordered dental stone and I am going to try this next weekend on a print near me that has been stable for three weeks. I will document the whole process with photos and report back. One question: how do you store casts once cured?

Storage matters. Plastic boxes with padding, cool and dry. Extreme temperature swings cause micro-fractures; humidity grows mould -- add silica gel in a humid climate. Do not store casts touching; wrap each in acid-free tissue. Label everything: date, location, ground condition. I have casts eight years old in good shape. If you cast next weekend, take the photo documentation seriously -- that is your proof. Looking forward to the report.