It seems to me that, after a few years of taking measurements, it comes down to preference. I have used the Cocla and they are good but cost is an understatement - you could buy a small house for an equivalent amount. So, I still stand by the Bruntons. Most compasses will get you good data. Its the ease and speed at which you can take them that is the key. There are apps for mobile phones that will take planar and linear data but I'm not sure of the error in these. When I investigated this about 12 months back there seemed to be +/- 7 degrees error on planar measurements but that will have no doubt improved. The beauty of the mobile phone programs is that they plot stereo nets for you as you take the measurements. The issue is, however, that people rapidly forget how to interpret or check their data - using a manual compass and drawing summary stereo nets in your notebook may seem old-school but at least it makes you check and think about your data.

In my opinion the Krantz Company produces the best geological compasses.

Attached the link:

http://www.krantz-online.de/en/online-shop/___showCat/11/___pageid/14/compasses.html

Definitely, the Freiberg model have very helpful capabilities but of course biggest price. I've been used Krantz version compass: LINK:

http://www.krantz-online.de/en/online-shop/___product/235/___showCat/11/___pageid/16/krantz-version_-_geologist-s_compass.html

and I'm very satisfied. The choice depends on you. best regards

I still use an old Topochaix I have bought from France, in the late 80's. It is handy, easy to open, with a large quadrant easy to read, and its inclinometer is used to read pitch values of lineations on relatively steep planes. Two bad news: it was an expensive tool, and the company at Paris seems to have closed. Domage!

Dr. M. Tekin Yürür, Ankara

I use a Breithaupt GEKOM compass since 3 years and I've never regret to buy it. It's robust and easy to handle.

Greetings

P.S.: I paid about 400 Euros.

Once you get used to use friedberger geologist's compass, the others make you waste time in the field. yes it is expensive but it deserves, I think. It is user friendly.

http://www.deakin.com/shop/products/?p=2904

I have two Freiberg's and they are a waste of time. There is no damping mechanism for the needle and the internal clino/arrow is very cheap. The hinges loosen after prolonged use. For me the Brunton Geo compass is the best. It has a nice internal clino with accurate gradation and levelling bubble. The hinge has the same graduation as a Freiberg. The needle is relatively well damped. It also has a mirror and siting attachment that make it good for measuring lineations. It is slightly cheaper than the Freiberg.

I'm not sure about the exact replacement value for the Brunton but it was in the order of A$800 when I queried it a few months back. This was from a local supplier. You should be able to source it cheaper off the net, or from the manufacturers - The Brunton Co., Riverton, Wyoming, USA.

dear domenico

I use a Silva compass for my measurement and I think it's very good and cheap, it's a Swedish product I have it from 2002 until now and its product in 1988 and still work until now, it's easy to open and used and I was using it to read the fault plain in the field work

By far the best compass for structural measurements is the Breithaupt (Cocla) compass. It has a high pricetag but is worth every dollar spent on it. If your data are important then don't skimp on the price of the tool used to obtain them.

It seems to me that, after a few years of taking measurements, it comes down to preference. I have used the Cocla and they are good but cost is an understatement - you could buy a small house for an equivalent amount. So, I still stand by the Bruntons. Most compasses will get you good data. Its the ease and speed at which you can take them that is the key. There are apps for mobile phones that will take planar and linear data but I'm not sure of the error in these. When I investigated this about 12 months back there seemed to be +/- 7 degrees error on planar measurements but that will have no doubt improved. The beauty of the mobile phone programs is that they plot stereo nets for you as you take the measurements. The issue is, however, that people rapidly forget how to interpret or check their data - using a manual compass and drawing summary stereo nets in your notebook may seem old-school but at least it makes you check and think about your data.

I am happy with the Breithaupt Kassel GEKOM.

As usual the compass one prefers is a matter of taste and habit but also standard procedure of data notation. One may also take into account how often it is used and how many measurements one takes. You don't need a sledgehammer to crack a nut. For a structural geologist Breithaupt and Freiberg compasses are useful because they allow the measurement of two values (azimuth/dip direction and dip angle) simultaneously without having to reposition the compass making these models very handy if you have to collect a lot of data. Since you measure the dip direction instead of strike (Clar notation) you may have to recalculate your measurements to the strike notation (e.g. right hand rule) for some data bases but that should not be a problem for a geologist. Disadvantage: the price. Breithaupt offers different models at different prices (between around 400-1300 EUR), Freiberg (e.g. via Krantz) offers another model, I think for around 600 EUR (but I have not checked the recent prices). There is a considerably cheaper model on the market but I recommend not to buy it, the quality seems to be dreadful. Some models of the Brunton compass allow direct azimuth measurements as well. But for the dip angle you have to reposition the compass to use the clinometer.

If you are not a structural or mapping geologist you may be happy with a Silva compass with which you measure strike and dip angle; it is much cheaper, light-weight and reliable. Many of my colleagues in Norway prefer the Silva despite of taking a lot of compass measurements during mapping. As I said: it is a matter of taste. Personally, I prefer the Clar notation and use the Freiberg model (I am also used to it since I studied at a German University) . The declination is furthermore easy to adjust, and this was particularly helpful when I was working in the Arctic with a declination of more than 80°.

This is the best.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.jorc.afarazmand.StructuralCompass

I am agree exactly with Kerstin at least about the Freiberg  compass, as I am using it since 20 years ago in my structural measurements e.g., dip/ dip direction of planar surfaces , plunge/ plunge  direction of lineations or slickenlines on fault planes ( fault- slip data).

There is nothing wrong with the relatively cheap Silva compass (Swedish) for quick readings of dip and strike. Probably available in your home town. The Brunton compass is superior and more accurate, if you need the accuracy, but it takes a bit longer to make the readings.

There is a new Brunton model that allows sumultaneous azimuth and dip measure. It also can measure lineations. Wondering if anybody tried it yet (?)

I own a Brunton Axis (the model that allows simultaneous azimuth and dip measurement) and I love it. There is a slight learning curve, but it's easily picked up if you're used to taking field measurements. I don't have any experience with the Frieberg or Breithaupt compasses, but I'm happy with my Axis.

PSA: I recently started working at Brunton, but my previous recommendation still stands. I used the Axis in the field regularly before I was hired here.

Thanks Dalton. I actually bought Axis and tried it in the field last week. I like the way it works. One minor issue is that the clinometer does not fully lock by the button so you have to be careful moving compass into horizontal position without extra shaking movements. I find it somewhat difficult to take readings from the hinge dial (ticks and digits too small), but it is probably more operator issue rather than design)). Most critical question is whether hinges and axes get loose after repetetive use - it should become clear after a year or so. I take tons of measurements, they are all digitally recorded, so it will be a good test.

Thanks for the feedback! It’s good to hear suggestions from field users. It’s our newest geo-focused compass, so we’re still early in the long-term field testing process. I haven’t heard any issues with the hinge loosening yet, but let us know if it does!

In my opinion the good geological compasses are brunton compasses and the best of is a brunton axis pocket transit 360.

https://www.brunton.com/products/axis-pocket-transit?variant=36245706258

I would go with a Brunton compass. If you work in cold areas, you may wish for the one with the plastic housing. If you wanted a cheaper alternative, use a Silva compass but stick a level bubble to it (and make sure it is calibrated/stuck on a level surface) - having a level bubble is critical for measuring structures with shallow dips.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.jorc.afarazmand.StructuralCompass

The Freiberger tectonic compass is my favourite. It is robust, precise and I have used It for 25 years without problems.

I think this comes to personal taste, so the best should be the one you are most comfortable with - as long as you pay attention to declination. There are advantages and disadvantages to all of them. Even if you use a super-plus-maxi-accurate one, you may not get good measures if you can't properly use it.