FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Carles Curto]

I answer here a direct question from a recent consultant but, being a recurrent theme, I extent the question to the forum because I think is a good item to debate.
What makes a mineral collection "good”? Though it might seem surprising coming from a professional in this field I should answer that I don’t know. I explain that. The real sense and the projection of every collection must be determined by each individual collector's own criteria for selecting specimens, his/her ability to choose sensibly (according to education or as limited by finances, for example), and the knowledge acquired over time from reviewing the published literature and seeing other public/private collections. There are also other minor factors, such as local cultural tendencies to like or dislike oddities, that may come into consideration.
Collecting minerals is not just about randomly choosing specimens that one finds attractive, or gathering rocks as souvenirs from a recent vacation. When we collect, the ensemble of objects (in this case, minerals) must have an overall theme, e.g. geography (locality), mineral systems, chemistry, crystallography, pure mineralogy, or just esthetics (why not?). There are many different ways to collect minerals, from common species to extraordinary specimens, and each collector must develop his/her own strategies.
From my experience and in speaking with a lot of other collectors, I have learned that satisfaction, both short-term and long-term, is obtained both by the samples in one's collection and by any new knowledge which they impart, because both factors help us achieve a common purpose: gaining expertise about something we feel passionate about. The information sources about minerals that are available to us today are both diverse and powerful, and taking advantage of them to the best extent possible can only enhance the pleasure we experience as our collections grow. In fact, I don’t know of any type of collection as interesting and enduring as the simple acquisition of new specimens. Collecting minerals is not the same as collecting baseball cards (either I have it or I don't)!

[Tracy]

While I agree with the majority of the comments discussed here, there is one idea presented which bothers me - it is that each object in a collection must contribute to an overall theme, and that the collector must develop a strategy for collecting based on this theme. Is it an absolute requirement that a collection be defined by a strategy or theme? - for if this is so, then I cannot describe myself as a "true" collector.

I recognize that there are many people who can quickly and easily focus on a specific element of mineral collecting, presumably based upon advanced knowledge of a particular field (e.g., crystallography) or a deep interest in a geographic region. For me, however, there are so many aspects of collecting which excite me that it is impossible to limit myself to just one theme or one strategy. I simply look at and acquire specimens because they spark my curiosity about something: e.g., what gives a mineral specimen its shape or color, or what is its history, or why is it unusual. Over time I am learning that some characteristics appeal to me more than others, but by and large I am building my collection (for I believe that I have one) according to what interests me - in other words, somewhat at random and without a strategy. And even without a true focus, collecting minerals is nevertheless fun and rewarding to me.

I also allow for the likelihood that my interests will change over time, because my desire to expand my knowledge evolves slightly whenever I learn something new. With so many mineral species to choose from, I might pursue one species then later switch to another. I do not expect that my tastes and interests will ever become permanently fixed, Therefore, I do not wish to narrow my focus at present, or maybe ever.

For the purpose of assembling a display of minerals (public or private), I agree that a theme is important. And to get the best display one would need a focus and a strategy built around the selected theme. Yet for my purposes I am happy to move specimens inor out of storage places, and on or off display areas, as my interests change. And in my opinion my collection should, and does, include those pieces which are not currently on display but which excited me once before and also which might inspire me again.

Perhaps I am missing the point of this posting, and your comments speak to building a collection with the intention of having it widely recognized or displaying it publicly. But if I have not misunderstood then I must ask: given that I do not have any such intention, but simply enjoy seeing a specimen on my shelf and thinking about all that I have learned in the course of acquiring it, am I not as much of a collector as someone who chooses to focus exclusively on one species or locality or characteristic? And if the specimens I acquire are not of world-class caliber, but merely give me pleasure and teach me things, is my collection not as "good" as the ones in famous museums? Perhaps the word "good" is as personal and varied as "collection?" Forgive my lengthy and animated reply, for I am genuinely confused and mean no disrespect by writing it.

[Jordi Fabre]

Reading the Carles and TAK texts, a warning comes to my mind. Carle's text is accurate and I agree most of it, but I think that it is destined to advanced collectors or Museums. We can't forget that the vast majority of collectors are no advanced collectors, but people liking minerals by its beauty, colors, shape, or just as natural perfect miracles.
TAK, you say that you be uncertain about your collection because you don't have a focus, but that don't means that you don't be a real collector. Of course you be a real collector, you collect minerals and you collect the minerals that you like, no the minerals that people say that you must collect. This is for me the best way to do, otherwise it don't will be your collection but "other people opinions collection"
I prefer a no perfect, no world-class collection, but loved by his/her owner than a perfect, world class, collection just built following technical suggestions.
My experience is that this type of collections tends to be sold early, nevertheless the first type of collections, the ones loved by his/her owner, usually stay during long, long time owned by his/her "amateur" collector. I assume that it means something.

Jordi

[Carles Curto]

Of course, TAK, you are a collector. I just intent develop the idea of collection as a result of collecting for years, then, strategy(ies) is(are) changeable on time because people is also (fortunately!) changeable. In fact you are describing us your own strategy!
The final sense of my opinion is to encourage people to build a serious collection. As serious the collection is, more it amuses the collector

[Jan Erik]

I think collecting minerals is a question about reaching different levels. In the beginning I did collect nearly everything I came over in the mineral world. I remenber that specially the colour of a mineral was importent to me.

After watching, talking with, collecting in the fields, go to museums things turned out to be different. After awhile the knowledge of the subject minerals was growing. Building up my collection went into another direction, because the knowledge was increasing. The knowledge took me to an higher level. And becauce of that my collection is now buildt upon the fact that minerals means crystal habit, where you find them, groups, areas. beauty.

The collection has moved from "take home everything. Everything can be collected" to choose mineral specimens out from specially criterias.

I think everybody who is going into a subject like this want to be serious about it after awhile. And when the knowledge increase, the direction of the collection will take you to another level.

Of cause everybody can do collect in their own way and call it a collection. I do agree about that. But if you have been collecting minerals for years something moore than a minerals colour or name must be the most importent element of a collection, I belive.

[Tracy]

As I read the last few postings on this topic it seems clear to me that, with the exception of those who specifically set out to build world-class collections, the "goodness" of one's collection is a personal judgment that is made along with evaluating the "goodness" of one's self-defined interests and strategy. A subjective term such as "good" cannot be defined by objective criteria. I realize that this is a large part of Carles' original message, and thanks to all for helping to clarify things for me.

I believe it is also important (or at least helpful) to be able to distinguish between interests and ambitions, because both elements guide the evolution of one's collection. Here I offer up my own perspectives. Having spent several days thinking carefully about why I like to collect things (I can count at least 10 collections that I have maintained or still maintain since about the age of 4, with minerals the first and longest-lasting), I have concluded that there are three primary reasons why my interest in collecting minerals is strong and ongoing:

1) Mineral specimens are old. In fact, relative to my lifespan they are immortal. It amazes me to hold something in my hand that has endured for millions of years, and hopefully will continue to endure for many more.
2) Mineral specimens are complex. The forces of nature that give rise to things of such varied form and structure and beauty are utterly fascinating to me.
3) Mineral specimens are unique. A piece on my shelf, whether it is "good" or "bad," is the only one of its kind (in terms of shape, color, size, etc.) ever made in this universe.[this is where mineral collecting deviates sharply from baseball card collecting]

These sounded to me at first like silly reasons, until I thought further on the "glue" that links them together. This glue is CURIOSITY and an interest in learning! Consider:

1) They are old - because of this I am interested in geology, earth's history, stories about how they were found and when (e.g., labels).
2) They are complex - because of this I am interested in crystallography, mineralogy, physics, species associations, mineral identification, pseudomorphs, and much much more.
3) They are unique - because of this I am interested in esthetics, size, color, form, locality, "rarity" (a word I struggle with, to be addressed in a separate posting on another day), contacted to matrix or floater...and whatever else stands out to me.

What I have learned from this exercise is that my strategy of "no strategy" - identified as such by Carles, with gratitude - not only is as valid as any other, but more importantly gives me flexibility as I collect to learn as much (or as little) as possible about anything and everything. I am therefore defining myself as a collector-explorer, different from collector-gatherer or collector-specialist. I am not a beginner, as I have expanded my knowledge to varying degrees throughout the years. I am not an expert either, because I have even more yet to learn. As I research new topics/disciplines and as I view new specimens, "extraordinary" and "ordinary" continually take on new and different meanings for me. I acknowledge that these are subjective terms rather than objective ones, and to a large extent my perceptions apply ONLY to me. I also acknowledge that I am intentionally choosing not to be narrow my focus at this time, and that having a broad-spectrum approach does not automatically keep me a "beginner" collector forever. Narrowing one's focus is a frequent (typical?) consquence of becoming a more advanced collector, but I do not believe that it is a necessary or inevitable one - at least, not yet for me. Maybe when my brain is full, or when my house collapses under the weight of all my specimens! :)

There must be a "glue" that holds any solid collection together. I think it is the fun and pleasure and satisfaction that the collector gets by building it. I understand now that satisfying my curiosity is (and has always been) my interest, and that acquiring specimens whch I find "special," because nature is so incredible, is my ambition. I am off to keep exploring, because I'm not finished deriving fun from what minerals teach me...this is why I collect them. Writing this long and rambling reply has been part of my exploration. Thanks for reading.

[Crate]

When I first started collecting, nearly 50 years ago, I collected EVERYTHING. Minerals, rocks, fossils, I collected it all. Problem is, without a focus - a theme if you will - collections soon become assemblages, which soon become piles. I have assembled and dispersed at least five collections over the years. Each becoming more focused than the one before. At present, I collect minerals and mineral stamps from countries in Europe and the Americas. I collect ONLY minerals which are depicted on a stamp, and I collect stamps ONLY from countries from which I have a reasonable chance of obtaining minerals. The stamp is incorporated into the label of each mineral specimen. Specimens are upgraded as availability permits. But this is how I NOW collect. There is really no right or wrong way to collect anything. Well... so long as appropriate records are maintained.

[Carles Curto]

Thanks to your comments and excuse my late answer. Of course I always intent to express (with evident idiomatic limits) at the same time, a “mélange” of acquired ideas, professional experience (including relations with a lot of other professionals and collectors) and a certain amount of mineralogical knowledge. But there is a central point to understand: Collect, as a personal activity, is (with few exceptions) PERSONALLY elect what and how and how to enjoy to collect, Then, as a result of this and as far I know, every collection is different (fortunately!).
There is only a single point I think it could be discussed: I’m certain it is possible, in strictly mineralogical, scientific and patrimonial sense, evaluate the “goodness” or not of a collection and, from this point of view, not only world class collections are interesting (use “good”, if you prefer) and, in fact, there are a lot of not “world class” collections offering very good results of effort and knowledge, for example local (geographic), thematic, etc, collections.
Another question is the personal sense of “goodness”, if a collection is, or not, satisfactory to its owner and if the main goal of the collection, to enjoy it, is reached. I repeat and underline your own words (I’m absolutely agree with these words!) because I think they express an excellent reality, the best sense of personal collecting:

...There must be a "glue" that holds any solid collection together. I think it
is the fun and pleasure and satisfaction that the collector gets by building
it. I understand now that satisfying my curiosity is (and has always been)
my interest, and that acquiring specimens which I find "special," because
nature is so incredible, is my ambition. I am off to keep exploring, because
I'm not finished deriving fun from what minerals teach me...this is why I
collect them. Writing this long and rambling reply has been part of my
exploration...