FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Brooks]

I too am a subscriber and have pulled it up. On the computer screen they look quite different from when I actually print them out. Really weird. I could attach the article which is a PDF file but that may be a copyright infringement since it is only available to subscribers. Good article though.

[John S. White]

In Tucson the editor, Marie Huizing, told me that she was going to request that the publisher make the article available to all online, not just subscribers. I have heard nothing further on this so do not know if it is to happen or not. If it does, I will post a notice.

[Elise]

This is making me very nervous about my red beryl rough & cut slide vs other pictures taken digitally going into the same publication. Mark Mauthner told me there is a way to make a proofsheet which the printer uses to compare with. Maybe Mark would chime in here and add to the discussion, that is if he has recovered from Tucson yet and hasn't disappeared into another mine.

I guess I would add here what I wrote you in an email when the issue first came out, perhaps public discussion on the matter might help resolve it to the satisfaction of both sides (garnering more subscriptions for the magazine). It seems that printing "glitches" happen, but this was massive in scope. As a cover article written by an author held in high regard and with a long resume (as well as images from revered photographers) there ought to be compensation for "not getting it right" as well as incentive not to let it happen again to anyone else - especially as printing is in a state of evolution, combining technology of digital and old fashioned slides.

If it is possible, I would insist that they allow you copyright release to recreate the article on your own website, as well as theirs. Then link that to a posting on the FMF and everywhere else you can on other forums and websites. Then it would get even more readership and would dispel any connection to what is not worthy. And it would rank high in the searches with its variety of gems and minerals, drawing from a wider audience in several camps. All the articles Dick Hughes writes are recreated on his website and others - I know some of his publishers don't like his insistence on retaining copyright, but then they are read by more people and get a lot of play, plus he can add to them (with updates, which can be printed out and stuck in original paper version). I think this actually reflects well on the publication and entices people to subscribe. I realize this can't be a concession for all authors or the magazine wouldn't be able to exist, but maybe works as a "teaser" if done judiciously.

Having the article as pdf on the magazine website and yours would generate a lot of excitement and readership to the benefit of all as well as the positive aspect of fair play which a reading public can admire.

Best wishes,
Elise

[Pete Modreski]

Just now getting back to reading the Forum after returning from some extended touring in Arizona after the Tucson show, I’d like to share my regrets to John White about the way the photos came out in his excellent article in Rocks & Minerals. (Of course, I did have a chance to say this to John in person in Tucson too.)

Photographs in the magazine done by the new publisher had been looking quite good until now, and it’s particularly unfortunate that this happened to this article by John and on his Tucson-themed topic that everyone was looking forward to. I’m sure that Marie Huizing and Taylor & Francis will do all they can to republish corrected photographs and to insure that this doesn’t happen again.

And as others have said, it’s certainly true that the biggest value of the article was John’s writing, so thank you again John, for preparing this good article and sharing your information and perspectives about U.S. gemstones with all of us and the rest of the readers; it was a great job.

My sincere apologies again for the unfortunate quality of the printed photos in John’s article as well as the several other photos in that issue that came out below acceptable standards.

Pete Modreski (an executive editor of R&M as well as a Forum member)

[John S. White]

One final note from me, at least, for this thread. I do not want visitors to this Forum to get the impression that I am in any way displeased with the publication Rocks & Minerals because of the printing error I mentioned earlier. The publisher has some explaining to do, but the magazine is first class, it deserves your support, and if you don't already subscribe then shame on you. I am proud to be associated with Rocks & Minerals magazine and that is why I serve on the editorial board and why I regularly contribute articles, all of which is voluntary; there is no salary for service and no monetary compensation for articles.

[John S. White]

If anyone cares to read my article on U.S. Gemstones that appeared in the Jan/Feb issue of Rocks & Minerals, with the photos as they should have been printed but were not, you may access it using this link: https://www.rocksandminerals.org/Back%20Issues/2010/January-February%202010/US-gemstones-abstract.html

[renpagan]

Now these are good good pictures that do justice to a number of super gemstones and mineral specimens from the USA!

[Pete Modreski]

John, and all friends on the Forum,

I've just received the latest, May/June 2010, issue of Rocks & Minerals magazine, which contains three and a half reprinted pages of photos from John White's excellent article "U.S. Gemstones: An Overview" which appeared in the Jan/Feb 2010 issue. I think the photos look superb this time, as they should have originally; I hope you'll be pleased with them this time around. I know that managing editor Marie Huizing and all of us associated with the magazine sincerely regret the original printing errors that caused the photos to look substandard, and on behalf of us all, I once again offer John our apology. Our thanks again go to John and to all those who contributed photographs to his fine article (Chip Clark, Tino Hammid, Bob Jones, Joe Nagel, Jeff Scovil, Wendell Wilson).

Sincerely, Pete Modreski

[Jordi Fabre]

Put my two cents in.

I just received the last issue of Rock & Minerals and as Pete Modreski point out, the former bad printings are reprinted and this time with a superb quality.

As far as I can remember is the first time that a mineralogical magazine reprint 4! pages with 16! images. Not only this, this issue of Rock & Minerals contains several very interesting articles, as the new nomenclature of the Apatite (again...sigh! ;-), an extended index of Illinois mineral locality, the notice of new Raspites in Erongo Mountains, some other wonderful articles, and the highlight : the "big brother" of one of the nicer topics of FMF, the Adalberto Giazotto Collection in Florence ( https://www.mineral-forum.com/message-board/viewtopic.php?t=762 )

Folks, this issue of Rock & Minerals is stupendous, buy it immediately! ;-)

Jordi

[Pete Modreski]

Thanks, Jordi.

And regarding the article on apatite nomenclature, I think most all of us will be very pleased and relieved, that "ordinary" apatite is once again going to be fluorapatite.

Of course, if one wants the text of John White's U.S. gemstones article too, one would need to get a copy of the Jan-Feb issue as well. But one can also still download the text from the link John posted earlier,

https://www.rocksandminerals.org/Back%20Issues/2010/January-February%202010/US-gemstones-abstract.html

(the link says "abstract" but it really does contain the whole article.)

Pete

[Jordi Fabre]