FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[keith]

Hi John

I must admit I love the Min Record and what it does. But I wish it would do more of what it doesn't do.
It doesn't provide enough, or indeed, any day-to-day stuff that would appeal to the average collector. One only has to to look at the much older articles in various lapidary type journals to see what I mean.

What do I mean - articles on localities, collecting sites that the average collector can get to - with permission. Articles on managing your collection, how to articles on photography, micro mounting and the like - more educative articles to the average collector.

The Record seems to have moved to the high end, focussing on great minerals - not obtainable by the average collector. Some of the articles could be considered too scientific - but that caters for the serious mineralogist - so that is ok.

But what about the budding collector. How about articles on how to set up a display at a show. Articles on cataloguing, useful software, on crystalography - educate collectors as to how to determine the axis of a crystal, the 011 faces or orientation etc. Take any great pic of a new mineral and explain what you can see - not just the great crystal - but what you can learn from the specimen itself - crystal system - explain the faces, explain the associated minerals and what they mean and what that could mean about the ore body from which it was found, explain the scarcity or otherwise and also show what average pieces may look like. More articles on how to identify minerals - the separate Record publication on Mineral identification is great but could lend itself to reproduction in part as articles for the collector.

The record seems to have moved away from the average , which is why many collectors don't subscribe.

I would just like the Record to be a little less "up market" and cater more for the average collector.

By introducing more general and educative topics it may encourage more Mineralogy in Mineral Collecting.

I still love the Record and will contine to subscribe no matter what, but I would like some small changes.

Cheers

[Jim]

Hi Keith,

I understand your points of view, which were well said. I, too, have felt that some topics need more coverage in the main hobby periodicals such as articles on "how to put together a display or exhibit."

Why not write a letter to the Editor and make your voice heard. Or, better still, why not write an article or two on these types of subjects?

Cheers!

[Les Presmyk]

If you go back to early issues of the MR, you will see the articles you are talking about. Wendell Wilson got his start with the MR writing the Photographic Record and I remember the letters to the editor that followed criticizing the editor for including non-mineral related articles such as these. Certainly, Rocks and Minerals fills a lot of what you are suggesting and maybe it is simply that one magazine cannot be all things to all people. So, it may take subscriptions to the MR, Rocks and Minerals and Rock and Gem to fulfill your requirements.

[Peter]

I concur with Les, several subscriptions would get you the spectrum of information.
Dr Wilson has in one article expressed thta is it easy to imagine what a lesser specimen will look like seeing some of the well developed ones, but difficult if not impossible the other way around. Shows are full of the whole spectrum!

I still dream of finding a doubly terminated blue blue gem Jeremejevite crystal with complex terminations, 14 cm tall, 2 cm thick with a few more as a spray at its base and a few gem yellow Rhodizites 1-2 cm growing on it. Now the last, not very likely but imagine!

If you have a look to the last MR with the article on Merelani tanzanite etc deposit , to me it is really fantastic!

15 years ago I wrote a couple of articles on Ural gem deposits in a Swedish mineral magazine. One collector wrote:
Why write about Mursinka, such dream deposits we will never get to anyway!
Why not write about our mineas around "Kopparberg".
My question, why in the world does someone want to read an article about his back yard mines!
He better write it himself and share with others, and enjoy what others take their precious time to share.

I myself is a field collector. I prefer that to shows. To visit localities, see mineralizations in situ is my main interest, to learn, speak with people. Not to sit and write. I am often asked to write and share some information and if a nice person ask me I surely will, else I rather go to a mountain somewhere : ) I spend 8-12 hours a day at work in front of computers anyway and 20 minutes at home.

Best regards
Peter

[Peter Megaw]

Let's not forget extraLapis, Gloria does a great job!

[Gail]

Jim and I subscribe to them all, that way we have a good representation of what is currently going on in the mineral world.

[bugrock]

Hello,

I think Min Record has an important role to play and wish it would return in a pure sense to what I think is the
core purpose of this type of publication. It can provide the bridge between the dedicated amateur and professional
mineral enthusiast. It should strive to achieve that. Professionals can write articles to inform; those not necessarily
trained in the discipline but who have gathered knowledge by field experience can provide the broader picture,
the overview of localities, the history of collecting etc.

Locality reviews are great and I'm confident that will continue.

I would however like to see more articles that deal with specific minerals or mineral classes and the habits these minerals
can display in the major deposits that produce them. Even common minerals can be provided with an overview. For instance
Baryte, hematite, goethite or perhaps all the iron and manganese oxides/hydroxides (OK, my bias here). But one could fill a volume
with such themes. Lapis has done so many times (but with on average more colorful species).

But there are other Min Rec issues of late that are of concern. I know of very serious mineral collectors and even dealers
who have cancelled their subscription over this issue.

The rub is the supplements of Min Rec that feature the collections of one or more private collectors. Yes some really fabulous collections (or is this
intended show-off the collectors?) are featured. Great museum type pieces. Put aside the issue of whether most readers can afford
these rocks. These spreads really do not inform. Multiple premium pieces without a theme, either based on the
mineral species displayed or the localities represented. Jaw dropping specimens no doubt but at the end of paging through
I ask myself what have I learned. Sorry to say but very little or very little to connect the dots of minerals, where they occur, and why
they look that way. And the habit of indicating what other prominent collectors or what museum previously owned the pieces (loss to the public in
my view) is equivalent to people watching or name dropping. Such compendiums should be published privately and not in a serial
that many with a more general interest subscribe to. After all many of these exemplary private collections are destined to eventually be dispersed.
Not that all private collections end up on the market but would estimate that those that do not, those that find a good home in a museum,
are systematic in nature, either mineralogically or based on locality.

Would be interested to know in the cases where Min Rec has produced issues featuring a private collector if general dues are used to finance the issues.
If given the choice I would rather subscribe at a reduced rate and be offered the opportunity to purchase the supplements if interested.

Very interested in the thoughts of others regarding the direction in which Min Rec is headed.


George Balogh

[Jason]

Min Rec is fine the way it is..it's for the above average collector and/or lover of minerals. it gets more in-depth on subjects that the average joe may not like or understand..it's a a more upper echelon type mag..if you want more "general' or "average" articles get a subscription to Rock and Gem or Rock and Mineral magazines..let those of us who have progressed past simple rockhounding fieldtrips and generalization of minearals, which we have read about time and time again, have our more in-depth and fine-tuned magazine..oh and thanks to Rob Lavinsky for getting me my first sub. to min. rec..hooked for life..

[Peter Megaw]

I am definitely not a party to MR's editorial decision making process, but from what I understand the collector or "killer" focused issues that folks are expressing concern about are above and beyond what you pay for as a subscriber. In other words, enjoy them for what they document as the superb current state of mineral availability, or just what they are...they're FREE to you. Put another way, we should be grateful to those who choose to dedicate their resources to sharing what they have with the rest of us...these folks could easily have used the same money to buy good-great rocks instead!!! Note that Rashleigh and several others may have been the target of similar invective, but the resulting works are now considered classics.

The above is not intended to dismiss criticism of the MR or other publications for not serving the entire spectrum of mineral collectors, but simply to echo comments made by others that it cannot be all things to all collectors. Between libraries, the exisiting publications, and the internet, you should be able to keep yourself busy.

The flip side of this is that virtually all publications of this type..MR, Rocks and Minerals, Lapis, Mineral News etc. rely heavily on volunteer submitted manuscripts...so if you have a particular passion for a species, locality or whatever...by all means put together a manuscript proposal to float past their editorial boards...You will probably find yourself pleasantly surprised by their response, although you may be dismayed by how far out from the publication date things get finalized. Most importantly. you may ultimately realize that you never learn more than when YOU are doing the teaching!

[bugrock]

Hello again,

Wish to make clear an aspect of my earlier message.

I have no argument with displaying or featuring exemplary specimens, no mater if they
reside in public or private collections. By all means show the best of the best but my
point is that such specimens are best understood as well as enjoyed in a mineralogical
and historical context. A survey of a mineral species or mineral group, the details of a locality,
the history of the discovery and description of such minerals.

One recent display I viewed at a local show had wonderful thumbnail crystals as well as former Phil Acad of Science
specimens with a brief write up of the history of the mineral, who described it (with a brief biography,
image of the describer, details of the TL etc). Very well done.

Who owns the exemplary pieces at this moment in time is ephemeral at best. Now if Min Rec
would adopt a format where a full page spread of a very fine specimen is followed by one or two
well written pages regarding the mineral (not the owner of the piece) many of us would
feel they are getting our money's worth for the subscription price. Even the general issues of Min Rec
currently publish a few full page spreads with the name of the mineral, the owner, and perhaps
how it was purchased. Perhaps the owners of the pieces pay for these spreads but can't the editors
round out the story? I think with a little effort they can flesh out, so to speak, those pretty "centerfolds".
It would only add to the value of that shelf full of Min Rec issues when passed on to the next generation.

George

[Jesse Fisher]

The mineral collecting community is a dynamic group and there are many socio-economic strata to it, and there are a goodly number of publications and internet sites (such as Mindat and this one) that serve it. Publication such as the MR focus on the best that the mineral kingdom has to offer, which will, of course, feature many things that are out of the economic reach of many (including myself). On the other end of the spectrum, there are publications like Rock and Gem that have have a decidedly more "folksy" bent to them, and there are some such as Le Regne Mineral that seem to combine nicely both collector and academic/scientific sides of the hobby.

As Peter mentions, the "supplements" to the MR are underwritten by private contributions and are free to subscribers. Publishing a specialist, full-color magazine is not cheap and contributions of this sort go a long way to keeping any publication with a limited nitch audience viable. To operate as a business, the MR (and other such publications) must remain focused on what they see to be the wants of their base of supporters. Take the supplements for what they are and enjoy the pretty pictures - someone else is paying for it.

If you think that your own interests are not being served, then take it as a challenge, and write some articles that you think need to be published. If one publication is not interested then most likely another will be. Writing articles and going through the editorial process is hard work for no pay, but it is ultimately much more satisfying that just whining and complaining about a situation you're unhappy with.

Cheers,
Jesse

[Peter]

Spot on Jesse!
And there are many other interesting magazines

[John S. White]

Boy would I love to get into this discussion but for various reasons I feel that I should not jump in with both feet. I will say, however, that I agree with the writer who complained about the history of ownership being included in captions of figured specimens. I deplore this practice, it is only ego stroking. It also leads one to wonder why a particular specimen has been passed about so much, What is wrong with it that no one has wanted to keep it very long? Should I pay thousands of dollars for a specimen just because it has been once owned by this guy and that guy or that gal? Furthermore I know at least one dealer who does not want the whole world to know who he got a specimen from or who he sold it to. That should be private, and at times this information is even incorrent!

[Peter]

Hi John

I agree in many points. To me all information regarding a specimens provenance is interesting, but my interest is more to historical interest, or even more so if the details of where in a pocket, orebody, in what parageneses, from what part of a pocket, i.e. correlation wo mineralization etc is known. Then I have a few very interesting specimens with interesting provenance from maby aspects. I rarely trade or sell anything from my collection and people are almost shocked I had the (duplicate) piece for 20-30 years.

To me, if it changed hands 5 times within a year or two it really was not in these collections, it was dealer inventory! and I strongly question the real "collector" interest of such transactions. At least in my world my collection is not short term..... but society today is often. Some people just get their excitement by talking and circulating specimens and that is fine with me. People are different.

Same with investments. I know people buying, selling share, making and moving investments every hour of the day, laying on the beach w their laptop and never relaxing..... Gee, I prefer to disconnect, take of my watch for a few weeks every summer holiday. It happened that I went to a small local hop in the summer on a Sunday morning not even thinking about what day it was : )

Peter

[Tracy]

[Peter]

Tracy!
You have hit a weak point of some dealers. One can simply refuse to buy a specimen ulness the true provenance is revealed at the time of buying. A few times I have been promised the provenance when "someone"has finished" their deals with X to secure their interests. Sadly, this promise is not always fulfilled.

[John S. White]

Tracy:

I firmly believe in recording the history of the ownership of a specimen if it has been documented but, as I wrote, this should be a private matter between the seller and the buyer. The world does not need to know this history. Yes, dealers can request that they not be mentioned in captions, but who can be expected to respect that request down the road? Also, this business of publishing an endless stream of former owners is a relatively new phenomenon and dealers just a couple of decades ago were not aware of the threat.

Peter raised an interesting point and that is that many of the former owners appear to be collectors, but they are actually low profile dealers. Having once sold a collection they have come to realize that having their name as part of the provenance enhances the marketibility of the specimens, so are now acquiring specimens for their "collections" only to have them pass through their hands so that they can get more for them when they sell them. I do not respect that form of dealing, and journals like MR help to perpetuate this unfortunate activity.

[Les Presmyk]

I have subsribed for the MR since its inception and watched, and enjoyed it, as it has changed through the years. These comments are not new. If someone wants to buy a full page ad to display one of their specimens, I am in favor of that. If a group of people want to pay to have photos taken and published, it now becomes part of the historic record as to what those collections looked like at that point in time. And, before we get to high and mighty, let us not overlook the value of some of the mineralogic and natural history books that are held in such high esteem today started their useful lives as catalogs for the sale of those respective collections.

As Peter Megaw observed, these supplements are not paid for by the subscribers so you can either enjoy them or throw them away if they offend you too much. There is no question these issues stroke egos and somehow help sell specimens. So what. They are providing us with the opportunity to see specimens we would never get to see, even if they all belonged to museums.

[Jim]

To the casual reader the recent comments could come across as if the practice of "publishing an endless stream of former owners" is sort of an uncontrolled and pervasive epidemic in the journals.
I agree that the practice is rampant in dealer descriptions, but how many issues of, say the MR, exhibit it? When I look at photographs in recent issues, I see that credit is given to the photographer and sometimes the current owner (private or dealer), but I do not see photo after photo (in regular articles or show reports) with lists of former owners. The same is true in my experience with Rocks & Minerals and Rock & Gem. Now, some supplements contain this type of information -- like the beautiful IKONS supplement, but the intro to the IKONS supplement actually cautioned collectors about putting too much stock in things like "provenance" (be it a famous collection or a specimen has been published).

The Texas Collectors supplement also lists previous owners in some captions, but this was the independent choice of the contributors -- it was not editorial policy. The Texas supplement showcased some highly seasoned and well respected collectors, who apparently thought that such historical info added to the presentation. And these are some people who are not dealers.

Personally, I find collector provenance interesting so I am not offended by listing previous owners if space allows and it adds an historical or human interest dimension to the presentation. I should note that even an article about John White's collection in the MR (May-June, 2009) follows this basic idea. In particular, Figure 4 (p. 217) says that a lovely spinel crystal was a gift to John from Helmut Bruckner. Maybe John did not sanction that comment (article was authored by Tom Moore), but it was a nice touch even though it did not inform readers anything about geology or locality.

Abuse, such as noted by John White, does certainly happen! But playing Devil's Advocate, I fail to see the "epidemic" outside of dealer's writings.

Cheers,

[John S. White]

Hopefully this will be my final comment on this issue. Les has misunderstood the focus of my complaint. I was not referring to the special issues. Those who pay for these have the right to put in them whatever they want. However, I would prefer not to see attribution beyond current ownership in the captions of regular issues, be it MR, Rocks & Minerals, Rock & Gem or Mineral Up! If I were editor I would not do it. On the other hand, if the editor thinks it appropriate, why is it not done consistently instead of being a sometimes thing?