N.B. THIS STONE IS NOW IN THE ENTRANCE HALL OF KINBLETHMONT HOUSE ( NO 641 472) , AND CAN ONLY BE VIEWED WITH THE OWNER'S CONSENT.

This stone was unearthed on 14th May 1952, when a field,about 300 yards (275 metres) North of Kinblethmont House, was being ploughed. It was face down, about 4 inches (10 cms) below the surface. It is mentioned in Mr Wainwright's report that it was a tractor-drawn plough that upturned the stone. We can presume that even if the field had been ploughed before, a horse-drawn plough would merely have bounced off the stone, not being strong enough to dislodge it. (It was 394¼lbs ( 178 kg) when weighed). At any rate, once it was noticed to be a carved stone, it was removed to a nearby copse for safe-keeping until it could be properly examined.
Four days later, Mr F.T. Wainwright, Mr D.A. Gardiner and Mr F.W.A. Thornton arrived to assess the stone, and had it weighed and measured.
Since it was largely unweathered, they concluded it must have been buried for some centuries.
They did an excavation of about 100 sq ft ( 30 sq m ), hoping to find the missing section, but to no avail, even though they cleared down to the underlying bedrock.
However, they did find the socket hole for it, carved into the bedrock, which was only 1ft (30cms) below the surface at that point. This socket was some 10ins (25cms) deep and slightly larger than the base of the surviving fragment.
For some reason, Wainwright was certain that although the stone had certainly stood at that site, it must have originally stood somewhere else and only the fragment had been re-erected at the site.
My own supposition is that the whole stone stood in its specially prepared socket hole, but that once it fell, the bottom section protruded above ground, and had already been cleared in a previous stone clearance of the field.
Another possibility is that the stone was deliberately broken and felled, and buried face down, after the bottom section was removed or utterly destroyed. [ See below for an expansion on this supposition] How many years does it take to accumulate 4 ins (10cms) of soil?

The Stone.

The stone is an irregular, natural slab of sandstone, incised on one side only. It is certainly the remains of a larger stone, since the hind leg of the Dolphin, and the handle and pommel of the Mirror are both missing. To complete these, the stone would have to extended both leftwards and downwards.
I feel the stone must have been at least half as tall again, since if you look carefully at the photo taken by FT Wainwright, just below the front leg of the Dolphin, there is the remains of the "W" -shaped finial reminiscent of those found on the rod-end of Crescent-and-V-Rods [See Detail and Red-lined Detail above]

The Symbols.

The Dolphin is somewhat clownish, lacking the sophistication of Meigle No 5, or the dynamism of the Golspie Stone. The exaggeratedly curved snout is a trait of the Dolphin in what is nowadays Aberdeenshire. Its banana-like snout makes it quite cartoonish and combined with the set of the eye, a jokey friendly-looking soul. It also is one those with the extra "curl" above its "paws".

Between its legs, there is the plate and top handle bracket of a distinctive Mirror. Note how the rim tapers as it approaches the top bracket. Regrettably, the handle itself and the pommel, are missing.
Speculation about whether it was a Mirror, or Mirror-and-Comb is pointless, as there is no evidence either way, at present.

The Crescent-and-V-Rod is undistuinguished, being very work-a-day and plain. Note the lower line is not at all curved.
Also note that the Crescent seems to overlie another symbol, or part of a symbol, that has had its head pecked away [See Red-lined Detail above] It looks almost as though the Crescent-and-V-Rod was started left of its present position, and had to be abandoned.
Had the stone already cracked at that early stage?
Was it then "finished" but not to the owner's satisfaction, and abandoned immediately, hence its unusual state of preservation?
I somehow feel that the Crescent-and-V-Rod was carved by someone other than the Mirror and the Dolphin, and whatever symbol lay below the Dolphin's paw. The latter trio speak of a degree of style not apparent in the Crescent-and-V-Rod that exists. It seems perfunctory and uninspired by comparison.
On the other hand, the crowded nature of the carving implies that if Dolphin and Mirror were contemporaneous, then there was a substantial symbol above the Dolphin that has been displaced by the extant Crescent-and-V-Rod. Given that the Dolphin has the Mirror starting between its legs, and another symbol starting below its front paw, it's inconceivable that the big space above its back would have been empty.
Without the missing part/s, we shouldn't get too involved in fancy guesswork.
However, given that other stones were re-carved and redeployed, perhaps Wainwright was right. Maybe it did start somewhere else originally, and someone replaced the top symbol with the Crescent-and-V-Rod that had been lost.
It may have lain, broken, until someone decided to complete it, but it was cast down again, and there it lay until it was eventually found on that Spring day in 1952.

This is one of those superficially simple-looking stones that holds a story or stories that we are not party to, and probably never will be.
Was it accidentally broken, eg a sculptor's unlucky blow on a hidden fracture, or was it deliberately destroyed?
In either case, was it re-used? And if it was re-used, was it cast down in disgust or vengeance later? Perhaps a superstitious person ordered it to be buried face down to counter whatever potency it was deemed to hold.
Who knows?
It was buried for centuries, and it was uncovered half-a-century ago, and all we know for sure is that it is home to a bizarre Pictish beast smirking away at us.