FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Michael Shaw]

One of the things that makes mineral collecting so enjoyable is that there are a multitude of ways to build a collection. Some collectors concentrate on certain species, chemical groups, particular locations, or historical specimens. While I have certain locations from which I have assembled sub-collections, my collection is worldwide in scope. Thus, while en route to a mineral show, my wife invariably asks me what I will be looking for at the show. Occasionally I can answer with a short list of specific things I'm looking for. This is especially true if I am aware that a certain dealer(s) will be offering specimens from a new discovery, or a recently acquired collection that is rich in specimens from a particular location. Of course there is always a standing order for specimens that can enhance my sub-collections from Romania, Bulgaria, Southern Illinois, etc. Usually, however, I don't have a specific wish list, but wait for that certain piece or pieces to attract my attention as I'm looking through dealer's offerings.

So, my question is, when you attend a mineral show, do you go with specific wish list, or do you peruse the dealers stocks looking for anything that might enhance your collection in general. If you fall into the first category what minerals are on your wish list?

Michael

[Jordi Fabre]

Related topic (although not the same ;-) -> What are your favorite specimens? - (8)

[Mark Ost]

I tend not to have one approach that dominates my selections. I do first look at aesthetics but I have other pieces that are an example of a scientific example or less so a curiosity. Now if the minerals should come from an interesting place with a history I know or are fond of and it meets the aesthetics then That surely would be a consideration. I also have non collectors minerals that are of only scientific curiosity but I don't catalog those in my collection inventory. They are there to work on or illustrate a point. Size is not as important to me as interest and I have several small pieces that I am very fond of. They are much easier to store or display also. Large museum specimens are a bit out of my range but that has not stopped me from getting really pretty pieces that please myself and a fair number of others.

One fine way to look at the value of a collection is how many people, not as fortunate as you, can see and enjoy your collection. That is a very nice way to choose specimens.

[Don Lum]

[Roger Warin]

Hi all,
Surprising Michael’s question, which leads me to confess.
Which unconsciously guided me throughout my life as collector, it’s the poor old illustrations of textbooks of mineralogy and crystallography that I had to study. When I was a student, MR does not exist ...
So from the first mineral show I visited (Ste Marie-aux-Mines 1966) and a trip to Idar Oberstein (1966), I was looking for specimens that correspond to these illustrations of textbooks.
This research was based on the time spent by the professor to teach us and to ask us, and so difficult to understand the mineral world. For example, my professor (Henri Brasseur – Liege Univ.) did not talk much about fluorite, but against the duality between pyroxene and amphibole was his hobby, as well as the complexity of the silicates chemistry. One of his questions was to give the formula of tourmaline, eg elbaite one. I luckily escaped (at this time) to this question!
So I'm looking more for minerals from pegmatites than fluorite, which does not fascinate me much despite its remarkable light.
Side of sedimentary rocks, my favorite collection is calcite, because this mineral develops a large number of possibilities of different forms, perhaps the champion of the variety.
On another point of view, I'm looking for more minerals with low symmetry.
Finally, the world of twins, special features (fluorescence) and the distorted crystals fascinate me. I do not buy usual quartz crystal, but against the twisted quartz (Gwindels) fascinate me. Do you understand the crystallography of a "sucre" (closed twisted quartz or Geschlossener Gwindel)?
More recently, petrography of meteorites interested me. I collect thin sections of chondrites, achondrites, mesosiderites and so on.
But in general, for each of these items, it’s the aesthetic that guides me.
Roger.

[Pierre Joubert]

What a pleasant topic! I am rather narrow minded. My interest is Southern African mineral specimens, with Namibia first on the list; Northern Cape second. I would put tourmaline first on my mineral list, followed by quartz; topaz; aquamarine; garnets and dioptase. I could add to this all other 'gemstone' minerals.

[Jordi Fabre]

Another interesting related thread: How all you got started in collecting?

[Mark Ost]

Gee Roger, you had a mean professor with the tourmaline question. For those on the list that are non geologists (those with good sense), I should state a general observation that Mineralogy is considered the weed out course for aspiring geologists and is a bit feared. For those who did like it or did well many wound up on this list it seems!

But to get back on topic, Pierre mentioned garnets, so to add to my preference, as an example, I collected a garnet board (display) that has a nice specimen of all the main types of garnets in both series and a couple of varieties for andradite. Nice and educational too. Most folks who see it are surprised to find that garnets come in green.

[Roger Warin]

Hi Mark,
I'm not a geologist but a retired chemist.
Roger.

[Pierre Joubert]

[cascaillou]

doubly terminated (or floater) quartz crystals, about 2 to 2.5cm in size, unpolished, with aesthetic and/or unusual inclusions

Btw if you have anything like that for sale or exchange, let me know.

[trtlman]

Watermellon tourmaline, lapis, a good flourite sample, rough diamond, my collection is lacking so much that I would like anything for it but these are few that would to have.

[Joaquin Montoro]

After 32 years collecting minerals, when I go to a mineral show, I have in mind a few species which I am looking for.
I think that a collector must have a minimum number of species, especially the most important, known or generally in a symple literature. Not more of 250-300, well described and with their most general characters.
Then I put my interest in a little group of favourite species, where I sometimes spend an "interesting" amount of money.
The sistematic system of building a collection will come slowly if the specimens are good enough and the money cost is cheaper.
It's what I think.

[Peter Van Hout]

For some reason I always like typical botryoidal minerals like the superb yellow Mexican Mimetites, botryoidal Malachites or botryoidal Smithsonite to name only a few.
But my wish list is not complete at all with these three of course!

Peter Van Hout

[Mark Ost]

Ha fooled me! Now we have chemists where I work but I'll bet they are a bit easier on the eyes than you I suspect; if you forgive me!

You know this is not that uncommon that a person in one field becomes an expert in another. I had a geology professor who knew wetland plants like no ones business. I took a coastal ecology class that was heavy on plants. I was stuffing leaves into every pocket and carrying devise as it was hard to keep up with him. The biologists di well in the first part of the course but the geologists got even in the second part, barrier islands.