Who has the more durable skin?

OK, this question has been bugging me for a long time, who has the better durability/ strongest skin; Thing's rocky-like hide or Colossus' metal armor?

Well... Wolverine slashed Thing's face pretty bad a while back if i remember right...  I guess if Wolverine has never cut Colossus before, on accident or whatever, then maybe that means Colossus' skin is more durable?

i say the Thing
he has taken blows from stronger opponents and not go down

"i say the Thinghe has taken blows from stronger opponents and not go down"

Silver Surfer  has some pretty durable skin

If we're talking invulnerable skin here, Luke Cage is pretty much it.

As for the two options presented, I'd have to go with Thing.  Technically stone is more brittle than steel, but Thing's skin has an ablativeness that works well against other hard hitters. 

Thor's Hammer backed by Odin magic (same material for the Destroyer armor)

Adamantium (same material for Original Ultron and Wolverines bones)

Thor's Hammer normal levels

Surfer's skin

Vibranium

Carbonadium (Commie version of indestructible metal)

Secondary Impure Adamantium

Colossus skin

Cage's skin

Ironman's armour?

lonsdaleite?

Diamonds?

Titanium?

The Things skin

"Hardbody" (Bethany) from JB's Next Men must go quite high up that list.  She's only "a slip of a lass" (although hard muscles had made her strong enough to punch a "blade" hand through a man's chest, she's certainly not a "front-line fighter") but going purely on the "invulnerability" power she's more imprenatrable than Thing.  (At the beginning we were shown her sitting in the bottom of a large explosion crater with slightly ruffled and a smug expression that said "well? is that all?")

GJE

"thanks guys a lot, so you think Cage has more durable skin than either? "

"@Lost_Rellik said:

"thanks guys a lot, so you think Cage has more durable skin than either? "

Hell no!!! lol "

" thanks guys a lot, so you think Cage has more durable skin than either? "

i researched this awhile back and Colossus is definatly more than Thing. organic metal vs segmented stone.
Colossus has tunneled through stone, and Rockslides fist crumbled when he tried to punch him.
Colossus has taken ridiculous things with no, to little damage.  Cage is definatly less than either, but not too shabby either.
Darwin could have any beat in the right situation.

"i researched this awhile back and Colossus is definatly more than Thing. organic metal vs segmented stone. Colossus has tunneled through stone, and Rockslides fist crumbled when he tried to punch him. Colossus has taken ridiculous things with no, to little damage.  Cage is definatly less than either, but not too shabby either. Darwin could have any beat in the right situation. "

"Thor's Hammer backed by Odin magic (same material for the Destroyer armor)Adamantium (same material for Original Ultron and Wolverines bones)Thor's Hammer normal levelsSurfer's skinVibraniumCarbonadium (Commie version of indestructible metal)Secondary Impure AdamantiumColossus skinCage's skinIronman's armour?lonsdaleite?Diamonds?Titanium?The Things skin"

"i researched this awhile back and Colossus is definatly more than Thing. organic metal vs segmented stone. Colossus has tunneled through stone, and Rockslides fist crumbled when he tried to punch him. Colossus has taken ridiculous things with no, to little damage.  Cage is definatly less than either, but not too shabby either. Darwin could have any beat in the right situation. "

"
Things skin is more like "organic stone" with the inherent hardness of perhaps granite, and somewhat of the "flexibility" of human tissue, albeit ablative as stated earlier, though much less so than natural stone. 
 
With that said Collossus' organic Steel skin, or Osmiumis both harder than stone, and flexible to a certain extent...making it stronger and more durable than the things from a scientific standpoint. Also Colossus has survived several claw attacks by wolverine with only sparks as the end result and no visible scarring or lacerations (Wolverine has consistently cut through the Hulks skin..which is infinitely more durable than the Things in my opinion). Luke Cage's skin is Steel-hard, and much more flexible than Colossus' Osmium skin, and it is that flexibility coupled with its hardness that makes it quite durable (just as Titanium, because of its inherent "give", makes it more durable than nearly all Steel alloys). Whether that Lukes skin more durable than  Colossus' Osmium skin is debatable, but his skin is definitely more durable than the Things (the thing is probably more resistant to blunt force trauma because of his greater mass, density, and higher level of physical strength). "

"@TruePwnge said:

"Thor's Hammer backed by Odin magic (same material for the Destroyer armor)Adamantium (same material for Original Ultron and Wolverines bones)Thor's Hammer normal levelsSurfer's skinVibraniumCarbonadium (Commie version of indestructible metal)Secondary Impure AdamantiumColossus skinCage's skinIronman's armour?lonsdaleite?Diamonds?Titanium?The Things skin"

Your list is way off. Many items are in the wrong order. 
 
  @CATMANEXE said:

"i researched this awhile back and Colossus is definatly more than Thing. organic metal vs segmented stone. Colossus has tunneled through stone, and Rockslides fist crumbled when he tried to punch him. Colossus has taken ridiculous things with no, to little damage.  Cage is definatly less than either, but not too shabby either. Darwin could have any beat in the right situation. "

Apart from his skin is not segmented stone and there ends the comparison. They look similar so people assume they are.
The surface of his body is really skin, that has just become fortified and has it's rocky look. Like normal skin it can dehydrate and become brittle and it is a lot tougher than stone. 
 
  @Michael6ft7 said:

"
Things skin is more like "organic stone" with the inherent hardness of perhaps granite, and somewhat of the "flexibility" of human tissue, albeit ablative as stated earlier, though much less so than natural stone. 
 
With that said Collossus' organic Steel skin, or Osmiumis both harder than stone, and flexible to a certain extent...making it stronger and more durable than the things from a scientific standpoint. Also Colossus has survived several claw attacks by wolverine with only sparks as the end result and no visible scarring or lacerations (Wolverine has consistently cut through the Hulks skin..which is infinitely more durable than the Things in my opinion). Luke Cage's skin is Steel-hard, and much more flexible than Colossus' Osmium skin, and it is that flexibility coupled with its hardness that makes it quite durable (just as Titanium, because of its inherent "give", makes it more durable than nearly all Steel alloys). Whether that Lukes skin more durable than  Colossus' Osmium skin is debatable, but his skin is definitely more durable than the Things (the thing is probably more resistant to blunt force trauma because of his greater mass, density, and higher level of physical strength). "

The Things skin has the inherent hardness of granite...... Titaniium is more durable because of its inherent give...... Its debatable that Luke Cages skin is as durable as Colossus's........ The Thing is more durable to blunt force trauma because of his greater mass, density and higher level of physical strength...... Where do you find this crap ?   "

(again left to our own personal opinions...and the thing has withstood punches from a fully enraged Hulk and Champion...just to name 2)

Titaniums properties can be googled, wikied etc, ad infinitum.

I get this "crap" from my own knowledge of the characters gleaned by reading comic books, researching via the internet (the sum of nearly all human knowledge can be found there/here.....you should try it sometime), and my own Intellect and ability to extrapolate. 
  
To act as if others opinions are wrong simply because you disagree is the epitome of ignorance...a flawed stance from any standpoint. To act as if you are the most knowledgeable is in and of itself empirical evidence to the contrary.
 
Please be accurate when you "qoute" others...to leave out critical words is disingenuous to say the least. 
  
In the original stories of the X-men wolverines claws could not penetrate Colossus' skin....later they could...the difference is in the writers...so who's right?...no-one is right or wrong....it's fiction.  
 
Adamantine is the strongest metal..stronger even than Adamantium. (look it up "creator")

"@the creator said: 

The Things skin has the inherent hardness of granite...... 
Titaniium is more durable because of its inherent give...... 
Its debatable that Luke Cages skin is as durable as Colossus's........ 
The Thing is more durable to blunt force trauma because of his greater mass, density and higher level of physical strength...... 
Where do you find this crap ?   
 
  I typed: "The Things skin has the inherent hardness of perhaps granite"...(i chose granite because it is likely the hardest of all the "rocks")    
Whether  Lukes skin more durable than  Colossus' Osmium skin is debatable    (these are fictional characters and abilities so much is left to ones own opinion...which, I believe that is what was asked for...our opinions)
 
"The Thing is more durable to blunt force trauma because of his greater mass, density and higher level of physical strength"...... 

(again left to our own personal opinions...and the thing has withstood punches from a fully enraged Hulk and Champion...just to name 2)

  
  
"Titaniium is more durable because of its inherent give" 

Titaniums properties can be googled, wikied etc, ad infinitum.

    
 

I get this "crap" from my own knowledge of the characters gleaned by reading comic books, researching via the internet (the sum of nearly all human knowledge can be found there/here.....you should try it sometime), and my own Intellect and ability to extrapolate. 
  
To act as if others opinions are wrong simply because you disagree is the epitome of ignorance...a flawed stance from any standpoint. To act as if you are the most knowledgeable is in and of itself empirical evidence to the contrary.
 
Please be accurate when you "qoute" others...to leave out critical words is disingenuous to say the least. 
  
In the original stories of the X-men wolverines claws could not penetrate Colossus' skin....later they could...the difference is in the writers...so who's right?...no-one is right or wrong....it's fiction.  
 
Adamantine is the strongest metal..stronger even than Adamantium. (look it up "creator")

 
I'm certain you will feel the need to "prove me wrong"...I believe, however, that your need to do so emanates from  a deep sense of insecurity on your part...again...my opinion..... "

 
I'm certain you will feel the need to "prove me wrong"...I believe, however, that your need to do so emanates from  a deep sense of insecurity on your part...again...my opinion..... "

Colossus.

–noun

Colossus' skin is tougher.

colossus's organic metal is more durable

"@the creator said: 
   Oh and this reverse psychology BS.......to show you are wrong, I would have to prove it now wouldn't I...... 
It's not to simply prove you wrong that I would do this, Its to stop the flow of incorrect information that others might believe. 
That is the only valid reason for pointing out all the major inaccuracies. 
But them I don't want to humiliate you by going line by line correcting your mistakes....or do I  
    
reverse psychology 

–noun

(in nontechnical use) a method of getting another person to do what one wants by pretending not to want it or to want something else or something more.

 
Please actually have an idea of somethings definition before you use it out of context in the future...so you're saying that I typed that because I actually wanted you to prove me wrong??? Pathetic.....you are not nearly as clever as you would like to believe...or attempt to dupe others into believing you are. 
  
None of what i typed was innacurate. It's relatively easy to type that you CAN dis-prove something. Much more impressive to actually DO SO. By typing these things you attempt to make yourself appear omniscient. The Opposite of such a state of knowing is most probably more of an accurate assessement of your depth of knowledge.  Your inaccuracies in quoting me constitutes incorrect information does it not? Please try to follow spirit or your own convictions, as it will give much more credence to your in ferred tenets.
 
@the creator said:     But them I don't want to humiliate you by going line by line correcting your mistakes....or do I  
 
So by copying and pasting what someone types followed by a juvenile reference to fecal matter of which you're so fond of using 
was not an atempt to humiliate? How noble of you to spare the feelings of us mortals. 
 
@the creator said:     But them I don't want to humiliate you by going line by line correcting your mistakes....or do I  
 
I went line by line because you asked where i got this "crap" and i wanted to be thorough in explaining to you where I did, indeed, get it. Is this freudian? Did my going line by line correcting your mistakes humiliate you? If so I vehemently apologize :-). 
 
You, sir (and I use the term loosely), are devoid of any and all integrity. Evolve. I implore you. 
 
 
 
"......you are no more a threat to me than the world smartest tick" (paraphrased) "

"
@Michael6ft7 said:

"@the creator said: 
   Oh and this reverse psychology BS.......to show you are wrong, I would have to prove it now wouldn't I...... 
It's not to simply prove you wrong that I would do this, Its to stop the flow of incorrect information that others might believe. 
That is the only valid reason for pointing out all the major inaccuracies. 
But them I don't want to humiliate you by going line by line correcting your mistakes....or do I  
    
reverse psychology 

–noun

(in nontechnical use) a method of getting another person to do what one wants by pretending not to want it or to want something else or something more.

 
Please actually have an idea of somethings definition before you use it out of context in the future...so you're saying that I typed that because I actually wanted you to prove me wrong??? Pathetic.....you are not nearly as clever as you would like to believe...or attempt to dupe others into believing you are. 
  
None of what i typed was innacurate. It's relatively easy to type that you CAN dis-prove something. Much more impressive to actually DO SO. By typing these things you attempt to make yourself appear omniscient. The Opposite of such a state of knowing is most probably more of an accurate assessement of your depth of knowledge.  Your inaccuracies in quoting me constitutes incorrect information does it not? Please try to follow spirit or your own convictions, as it will give much more credence to your in ferred tenets.
 
@the creator said:     But them I don't want to humiliate you by going line by line correcting your mistakes....or do I  
 
So by copying and pasting what someone types followed by a juvenile reference to fecal matter of which you're so fond of using 
was not an atempt to humiliate? How noble of you to spare the feelings of us mortals. 
 
@the creator said:     But them I don't want to humiliate you by going line by line correcting your mistakes....or do I  
 
I went line by line because you asked where i got this "crap" and i wanted to be thorough in explaining to you where I did, indeed, get it. Is this freudian? Did my going line by line correcting your mistakes humiliate you? If so I vehemently apologize :-). 
 
You, sir (and I use the term loosely), are devoid of any and all integrity. Evolve. I implore you. 
 
 
 
"......you are no more a threat to me than the world smartest tick" (paraphrased) "

It's not out of context as you are looking to avoid the confrontaion by setting up the parameters of the encounter - phrasing them to deter anyone arguing with you. Shame it failed :-) 
Amazingly you have learnt how to copy and paste things in from Wiki and other sites. 
Bravo. Get your self a cookie. 
  
All you have done so far is deflect from your poor 1st posting. 
I'll answer the issues with it now. 
If you think you are right, try arguing the points raised. I know you will want to deflect again but try your best to stay on subject :-)  
 
 
@Michael6ft7 said:  
 
    

Things skin is more like "organic stone" with the inherent hardness of perhaps granite, and somewhat of the "flexibility" of human tissue, albeit ablative as stated earlier, though much less so than natural stone. 

 
The Things skin looks rocky and stonelike but that does not make it behave like 'organic stone'. It actually behaves like thick, highly dense 'skin', in that it can dry out through exposure to adverse environmental conditions and become brittle. It flexes just like thicker skin (in some ways like a thicker animal hide - say a rhino) - it flexes with the expansion and contraction of his muscles and chest. It stretches as he moves. 
Marvel described his condition as follows, 
" The mutagenic, specific-frequency cosmic ray bombardment caused his musculature, bone structure, internal organ composition, soft tissue structure, and skin to greatly increase in toughness and density. " 
 
Now simply increasing density does not simply increase hardness. 
In fact increasing the hardness of something does not always make it harder to damage, as hardness and brittleness can go hand in hand (I should know, I'm a Material Scientist). 
Thats why the text also mentions toughness - an important property for materials wishing to resist damage (you can try looking that one up on Wiki now if you like :-)  ) 
Thus you can have a high hardness, highly strong material that fractures with a sharp impact but a less hard, less strong but tougher material resists the impact without fracturing. 
 
In this instance the toughness and density increase (in the way of Marvel comic book physics) account for his dramatic increase in durability, just like it does in a partly similar way for Asgardians (who have flesh that is 3x as dense as a humans). 
 
Granite has a hardness on the Moh's scale of around 6.5 - 7 and when Granite is measured using the Vickers hardness method, it gives results around the 800 - 900 region. You can get hardened steels alloys that can reach 900 - 1000 Vickers hardness. I don't recall the Thing being cut often (Adamantium is an exception), at least not by hardened steel weapons (or more advanced and improved Marvel Universe alloys). 
 
So what makes you think that the Things skin might be around the inherent hardness of Granite again ? 
 
His skin is ablative (chipping off) in the sense that when it gets hit by massive impact or is damaged (dried out), it flakes off, just like human skins can. You have taken off a chunk of skin through an abrasion, well so can the Thing. It just requires a lot more force. And it ablates less than natural stone because it is not stone, it's skin. It has toughness. 
 
How many chunks of granite / rock can you tell me that can survive armour piercing boozaka shells without harm - like the Things skin can because its not just hard or strong, its tough.
 
 
@Michael6ft7 said:  
 
 

With that said Collossus' organic Steel skin, or Osmiumis both harder than stone, and flexible to a certain extent...making it stronger and more durable than the things from a scientific standpoint.

 
 Colossus's whole body converts to an organic steel alloy , described here by Marvel, 
 "Colossus is a mutant with the superhuman ability to convert the tissue of his entire body into an organic steel-like substance, granting him superhuman strength and a high degree of resistance to bodily harm. This substance, resembling organic steel, is of unknown composition but appears to be analogous to osmium and to carbon steel." 
  
Now you say that the steel or Osmium are both harder than stone. 
I will assume when you say stone, you mean granite, as you are saying that Colossus is more durable than the Thing. 
Carbon steels can vary greatly in hardness through composition and heat treatments but lets go with a figure of 700 Vickers (I'm being very generous here). 
Osmium can be harder but is brittle, with hardnesses of around 650 Vickers (converted). 
Neither is as hard as granite. 
To make it clear, people can buy granite cutting boards. You don't cut the granite with your knives. Granite, like most cermaic types materials, is harder than most metallic materials. 
This is also why in ancient times, people used ceramics (sand) to polish metallic items - they are harder (usually). 
 
His skin is completely flexible to him. It behaves just like anyone elses skin. It expand and contracts with the flex of his muscles. However it's inherent resistance to deformation means that to most others who say for example try and pinch his skin together will be in for a hard time unless they happen to have massive superhuman strength. 
  
The steel alloy that Colossus is made from is stronger than skin, even if that skins is a few times denser than normal. It is also extremely tough - being able to deform potentially even more than the Things skin. 
Then there is the fact that Colossus's entire body is composed of this steel alloy while the Thing's skin is harder than his internal flesh. 
This means that Colossus more resistance to impacts as the steel distorts less from impact as it is backed with more 'steel' of the same strength and toughness. 
 
As for the analogous to Osmium point that Marvel raises, it could be related to it's resistance to corrosion (Colossus does not rust) and chemical resistance (and along with an enhanced melting point).
 
 

 Also Colossus has survived several claw attacks by wolverine with only sparks as the end result and no visible scarring or lacerations (Wolverine has consistently cut through the Hulks skin..which is infinitely more durable than the Things in my opinion). 

 
Was Wolverine going all out to skewer Colossus as he has done to the Thing ? 
Using the Hulk as a benchmark is not so good as he is actually more durable than Colossus, to both physical and energy attacks. 
How can the Hulks skin be infinately (meaning without limit) more durable than the Things ? 
It would be more accurate to say that the Hulk's skin (and flesh) is far more durable to both piercing attacks and energy attacks than the Things because the Things skin handles the Hulks blows quite fine. 
 
 

Luke Cage's skin is Steel-hard, and much more flexible than Colossus' Osmium skin, and it is that flexibility coupled with its hardness that makes it quite durable (just as Titanium, because of its inherent "give", makes it more durable than nearly all Steel alloys). Whether that Lukes skin more durable than  Colossus' Osmium skin is debatable, but his skin is definitely more durable than the Things (the thing is probably more resistant to blunt force trauma because of his greater mass, density, and higher level of physical strength).
  

Actually Lukes skin has more recently been described as Titanium hard (around the 950 Vickers hardness level). It apears to be more flexible in that despite its great hardness, his underlying flesh is not as durable as his skin. Again his skin flexes with him but it is an illusion that it is more flexible. To a doctor trying to push a needle in to him, his flesh / skin would unlikely move due to it's inherent strength but to someone of superhuman strength, it would be flexible.  Now no doubt you looked on Wiki and read that Titanium is ductile - perhaps this refers to your inherent give remark. Titanium is not more durable (at least to physical impacts) than nearly all steel alloys, as apparently you think. It suffers from something called notch sensitivity and that is why it has to be alloyed with other elements to over come this (and other issues).   Despite all the points raised Colossus is more durable than Luke Cage, to cutting, blunt force trauma, energy forms and chemical attacks. Colossus's skin and body is more durable than the Things, in that we are in agreement but you think that the Thing has more rsistance to blunt force trauma because he has greater mass, density and physical strength. Lets look at the physical characteristsics of the Thing and Colossus. I would estimate that the Thing and Colossus occupy a similar 'volume' as the Thing appears braoder and deeper but Colossus is taller. Density is based on mass per unit volume. If the mass and volume are equal, then the density is equal.                                             Colossus               ThingWeight (lbs)                     500                          500 Density                              Equal                     Equal Strength (tonnes)           Aprox 100              Approx 100  It appears that the Thing does not have greater mass, density or strength.  Perhaps simply the Thing appears to take more punishment as a testimony to his stubborness to quit, which has been shown many times.   Its been fun.  :-) "

"someone should hit you with a bag of rocks and downgrade your intelligence a few points down...
 
colossus
thing
cage
hulk
thor "

My eyes have been physically raped, and i didn't even read all that. You ARE a great debater, this is coming from me when i didn't even have to read it to know it was filled with EPIC success. Well done :-) "

Hey, I needed the distraction this provided. 
So is your list here saying Colossus is #1 and Thor is #5 ?  
 

"
@castleking said:

"someone should hit you with a bag of rocks and downgrade your intelligence a few points down...
 
colossus
thing
cage
hulk
thor "

Hey, I needed the distraction this provided. 
So is your list here saying Colossus is #1 and Thor is #5 ?  
 
  @dreadmaster said:

My eyes have been physically raped, and i didn't even read all that. You ARE a great debater, this is coming from me when i didn't even have to read it to know it was filled with EPIC success. Well done :-) "

Like I said it was a distraction. :-)    "

@castleking said:

" @the creator said:
"

Hey, I needed the distraction this provided. 
So is your list here saying Colossus is #1 and Thor is #5 ?  
 

yes, but i am willing to be convinced otherwise.
  "

I could go in to long explanation mode here but for now I would rearrange that list as follows 
  
Blunt Force Trauma 

1. Hulk / Thor
2. Colossus 
3. Thing 
4. Cage 
 
Piercing Attacks (Projectiles, AP explosives) 
1. Hulk 
2. Colossus 
3. Thing / Cage 
4. Thor 
 
Energy Attacks (Generic. Some have higher levels vs specific energy types i.e. Thor against electricity). 
1. Hulk 
2. Colossus 
3. Thing / Cage / Thor 
 
Wonderman would be an intresting one to add to the debate. 

So...........Does that mean you were wrong? O_o "

"@dreadmaster said:

So...........Does that mean you were wrong? O_o "

Ha. "

"only a wise man would be willing to admit he is wrong and an arrogant man would never believe he could be wrong or is wrong.
"

You seem to have difficulty staying in context and actually understanding what you read as well as some short term memory problems, so allow me to clarify things for you:  
 
Point 1.)
 
 @Michael6ft7 said:  
Whether that (makes) LUKES skin more durable than  Colossus' Osmium skin is debatable, but his skin is definitely more durable than the Things (the thing is probably more resistant to blunt force trauma because of his greater mass, density, and higher level of physical strength). 
  

@the creator

@Michael6ft7 said:   

@the creator

   @the creator

@the creator

 
@the creator

Juggernaut is more durable than anyone else mentioned here.

" Agreed. The conundrum was, however, Whose skin was more durable, the Things or Colossus'. With that stated It is unclear whether the Juggernauts skin is more durable or if it is the magical force-field enchantment that makes him nigh-invulnerable. "

" Juggernaut is more durable than anyone else mentioned here. "

" Perhaps. I am inclined to believe that one cannot know when it is in use and when it is'nt. I am also assuming he does not announce it every time it's in use. I am, again, assuming that he would use it against, say, Wolverines claws. "

" @the human Juggernaut said:

" Juggernaut is more durable than anyone else mentioned here. "

No Juggernaut got burned by a chandler.  "