In my experience, most geologists have a powerful aesthetic sense about rocks. Some rocks spark joy, while others leave them bereft.
I've written about this
before, but here are some further thoughts.
So what is is that makes a rock good? I think that a good rock is one which which has
good characteristics.
So, if we think of a rock as "igneous", it should be very igneous indeed. We don't want any damp, low-temperature shenanigans obscuring the fiery conditions of its formation: we want to be able to get as much high-temperature information out of the rock as possible. If we are look at a mantle xenolith, it should be as mantley as possible, not equilibrated with some tedious basalt, or the damp Earth surface. Freshness is key.
Similarly, a nice sedimentary rock should preserve as such of its early formation, precursor materials, (and biota) in as pristine a state as possible. You need some diagenesis to make a nice strong, rigid rock, but too much diagenesis is definitely bad **. Sedimentary structures are always good. Cements, overgrowths, and diagenetic phases should be clearly distinguished. Mudrocks are better if they preserve exquisite lamination. An oolitic limestone should have ooids preserving the most delicate banding within the ooids. Ideally carbonate rocks should have a carbonate cement which is visually and chemically distinct from the grains.
And if you're going to metamorphose a rock, do it right. Don't just make a nice sediment into some anonymous finely foliated crud. Grow proper new crystals. Make them visible. Give them colour: red garnets, blue kyanites or sapphirines, pink corundums, green omphacites or pargasites. Probably give them some fabric: a touch of foliation or folding is always nice. In general, high grade rocks are better than low grade rocks, but it's not quite as simple as that. Nice big new crystals are good at any grade, while sanidinite-facies porcellanites are usually pretty dull. Time and fluids are key here: long cooking times with a fluid phase produce nice rocks, whereas shorter cooking may lead to rocks which are underdone. A fine-grained eclogite is simply a missed opportunity. If you're going way down deep, don't just get there, and immediately get the next bus home. Stay for a while to enjoy the conditions, grow some nice crystals, and come back as a beautiful red-and-green wonder-rock.
And even if you like weird stuff, like fluid flow, or retrogression, or the formation of fault gouge, the same principles apply. There will be veins, alterations and fault gouges that sing of the processes that made them. And there will be others that don't.
Finally, in order for a rock's story to have proper meaning, it needs context. It needs to relate to other rock stories, and to the stories of people and events. A good rock needs a sense of place. Good, precise locality data and geological context data make all rocks better. Even terrible rocks can become not bad. And even the best rocks will be even more delightful.
Quality matters - seek out good rocks. You will understand more, and have more fun doing so.
[Picture of a good rock]
[Picture of a bad rock]
** unless you're talking about septarian concretions, which are *
ALWAYS GOOD*.