FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Les Presmyk]

Wayne Thompson and I have this debate on a regular basis. He has observed that if I ever get rid of our top 20 pieces there will be no value to our collection left (Paula's thumbnail collection aside). He is looking at this from a pure aesthetic or "Ikon" point of view. I counter that the real value is in the bottom 50% of the collection where the locality, scientific or historic specimens reside.

This is where a visitor will find the finest Arizona topaz, the co-type specimen for laurelite, aravaipaite, grandreefite and pseudograndreefite, probably the best crystallized (or primary) malachite from Bisbee and a number of other specimens like that. This is the part of the collection where if someone has read about an old locality, they come over thinking that I will probably have one. If not me, then we can call one of the other top Arizona collectors in the area to see if they have one. Or, put another way, I came home from a Denver Show years ago with several specimens for our collection. I was just as happy with a $50 dioptase from an obscure locality as I was a more attractive and more expensive Bisbee azurite.

So, the aesthetic can co-exist with the lless than spectacular. The true test of any collector is the spirit with which they build their collection. The collectors and dealers whom we associate with have a profound affect on our collecting styles. It is only with the passage of time and developing a knowledge base that each of us become comfortable breaking free of those initial influences and building a collection that is truly our own.

[Jim]

Hi Jordi,

I see and appreciate your points. My feeling is that "icons" today aren't necessarily as you described. In the IKONS book there were several specimens that, to my eye, were not exactly gemmy showy, but were rare and extremely fine specimens for what they were.

I can say that the agenda of the Texas supplement was for the individual collectors to select specimens that highlighted their personal collecting philosophy. Thus, it just so happened that arguably many of the contributors have the same general taste in minerals. That said, the same could be said of the entire field. Certain species always seem to be best sellers, always attract attention in exhibits and many authorities agree there is a hierarchy to the mineral species that collectors most desire.

Of course, this all feeds into your basic point or questions about whether the field as a whole is moving toward the collecting requirements of aesthetics and perfection over "scientific" value. Personally, the only trend I follow is my own personal taste... which happens to be fine gem crystals.

This is a fun thread!

Cheers,

[alfredo]

"Beautiful" and "ugly" are very personal concepts. I myself think Jordi's hessite pictured above is the MOST beautiful mineral I've seen since Tucson! So if that is the example of an "ugly" mineral to start this discussion, then I'm totally confused! Rare species + rare elements + unusual habit = beautiful (to me) - I'd rather have that hessite specimen than the best aquamarine ever mined.

(Jordi, you'd better get rid of that hessite before I see you in Ste Marie, because I can't afford it, so I'd just be forced to kill you for it ;-))

[Les Presmyk]

I guess a more basic question is why do we somehow attribute a fine hessite as having more scientific value than a fine beryl or fine elbaite? While today there may appear to be more concern about perfection or aesthetics, I would submit that older collections would have been better served if the collectors had been a bit more discerning. How many times have you looked at a collection from the 1940's to 1960's and observed that instead of buying 5 specimens for $5 each, how much better the collection would be if the person had spent $25 on one specimen?

[Paul Bordovsky]

Les said

"How many times have you looked at a collection from the 1940's to 1960's and observed that instead of buying 5 specimens for $5 each, how much better the collection would be if the person had spent $25 on one specimen?"

That is where the experience and knowledge come into play. And I don't have to
go back to the 40's or 60's, or look at someone else's collection. I just think back to
1998, my first Tucson show. The twenty or so specimens I bought home, and what
my $600 could have bought. But it is hard, hard, for a newbie to only get a couple
of things. Don't you think it was the same for the old time mineral lovers?

And in fact, it is still hard for me to limit myself, when there is so much cool stuff out there.

[BlueCapProductions]

I remember a story my father told me when we were talking about non-aesthetic minerals. One year he put together a case in Tucson that was everything EXCEPT the beautiful showy minerals. However, all these "ugly" minerals were stunningly important whether it was for the size or for an association. He got a real kick out of just standing back and watching people coming up to the case. For the most part, people would take one look, scratch their heads and walk away. But occasionally there would be a person who would walk by, glance at it and do a complete double-take that would stop them in their tracks. Then they'd start looking at all the other specimens and were absolutely blown away. After putting together some pretty major collections in his time, this one was still one of his favorites.

But these would not be the minerals I'd show someone if I were trying to get them interested in the hobby. When my non-mineral collecting friends ask me what's the deal with mineral collecting, I show them something like the IKONS book and they are blown away. Then they "get" it and want to know more.

However, it's not just all eye-candy. So much of mineral collecting is about the people. The people and their stories. Sit in a room with a bunch of collectors and the one thing that always surfaces is the passion that everyone shares for these things.

I love featuring Brian Kosnar in my Tucson recap films because this guy is great. Not only is he very knowledgeable about his minerals but he talks about them with a true, almost crazy passion. And the thing that really sets him apart is that all his stuff are the, using his words, "the black uglies."

So perhaps it's all part of a continuum. People become attracted to the hobby with the pretty ones, then they get bitten by the stories and passions that surround the hobby and then they really begin to appreciate the complexity, unpredictability and rarity of nature and that's where the black uglies come into play.

Even someone like Dave Wilber - the only person for whom a mineral term has been named after - put together a collection of agate <gasp> that he's still proud of to this day.

In the end, everyone has different reasons for loving minerals and I think that's one of the great things about the people and the hobby in general.

[keldjarn]

Brian,

you are so right , and I think it is the same thing with other areas that fascinate and attracts people. The more you know about something - the more you can appreciate also the subtleties, the rarities and the truely unique qualities and objects. But in the modern world - very few people get that far with anything ( even with relationships to other people...).
When inviting someone new to get interested in minerals, you will have to expose them to something they can easily appreciate because of general aesthetics appeal or value. If you are a lover of the outdoors, you will also enjoy the rainy days, the storms and blizzards, the cold and the heat - but if you want to make somebody not used to that kind of life interested, you choose a sunny day and an impressive scenery to make them interested....
The more sincere question raised in your post is why even at the more advanced levels of the mineral hobby, we tend to worship only the flashy, costly specimens. This is not universal but much more evident in the USA than in other countries I have visited. In Europe and also Japan there is a greater interest in systematic and rare minerals, locality collections and self-collected specimens. I have visited numerous mineral shows and museums around the world during more than 40 years and find that the trend you refer to impoverish mineral collecting, mineral shows and museum displays. In the end when competing only on attractiing people with beauty with no intellectual challenge, minerals will loose in the competition with most man-made objects and stimuli. (That could be the end of using space for mineral museum displays which could i.e. be replaced with interactive Jurassic Park entertainment.) When you have seen enough showy specimens of the 50 or so mostly displayed minerals, you really want something else. You want to learn about the science, the history of how the minerals were formed , the stories of wher and how the specimens were found, or you want to see some really uniqe minerals.That is why i.e. the case of exceptional specimens from the Tiger, Arizona locality was much more interesting to me than all the other displays of American Treasures combined at the last years Tucson shows.
I believe you really also ask a fundamental question I ask myself every time I sap through TV channels in the US. Are you really doing people a favour if you only give them access to entertainment in the simplest ways ? The total lack of in-depth programs demanding intellectual attention is frightening to a European. When people are trained to have an attention span of less than 2 minutes (also before th next commercial), how can you expect them to find pleasure in taking the time necessary to make in-depth studies of anything ? That is why there is also an increased focus of beauty over mineralogy.

Knut

[James Catmur]

Let's take this one step further that what we publish - what do you put in your display cases at home? Where do you keep those wonderful but less beautiful pieces. I have a feeling that all of us (including you Jordi! Don't deny it) tend to put out the more colorful material and keep the ones we love and adore for their mineralogical beauty in draws. I know I do to a strong degree, but I do try to put a few interesting 'lumps' (as my wife calls them) in the cases

Why do I do it that way? Well the display cases are often for the non-collector that asks to "see the rocks". Also I get a good color mix by doing that. Should I put more of those wonderful less colorful minerals in the display case? Maybe, especially if more collectors came to see the collection, I would. But I don't! I display the more colorful ones that I own - so why shouldn't the MAD collectors if that is what they think other people would like to see?

James

[Jordi Fabre]

James,

I don't deny it, but if you remember this, I have several not so nice rocks together with the nicer ones, My personal opinion is that the nicer ones helps to promote the less nice ones as well as the rare ones helps to promote the nicer ones.

Everybody, including me, like showy minerals by its beauty, but I think that it is something far away of the beauty that make still more interesting our hobby. I think that Brian and Knut reflected perfectly this feeling, I agree what they say absolutely.

It is true that MAD collectors do well displaying what they think other people would like to see. I can't complain about it. Just a little bit more room for not so showy, but rarer specimens, and then maybe everybody, themselves, beginners, mature collectors, and top collectors, will enjoy it still more. They already have this rare beauties on their collections, not problem with, it is just (again) the actual "flashy tyranny" of the medias (including Internet)

Jordi

[Jim]

Jordi,

You're undoubtedly correct. But my point was that a person doesn't necessarily sacrifice an emphasis or appreciation for "mineralogy" by collecting minerals that are visually "beautiful." Your original challenge to us all seemed to suggest those two "qualities" were perhaps mutually exclusive or a paradox.

Cheers!

[Jordi Fabre]

I'm sorry if my first post suggested that the two "qualities" were mutually exclusive or a paradox. I probably lost the clue to indicate the opposite: the two "qualities" are necessary, not exclusive between them at all.

The balance between both is my concern. If the balance moves to rare-systematic-ugly specimens would be for me equally bad than if the balance moves to only flashy specimens.
In fact my regular display and my own collection try to use this concept...

Jordi

[keldjarn]

I believe the last post of Jordi puts the focus right. What is the consequence of a shift in balance between the aesthetic and systematic approach to minerals. mineralogy and mineral collecting ? I think Jim takes to easy on this dilemma. I truely believe it is part of a greater shift in attitude towards life itself. There is a tendency today for people to expect to be entertained with little intellectual investment and sacrifice. There is an industry out there making people addicted to the consumption of simple stimuli to satisfy the inborn curiosity we all harbour with computer games and soap operas. This is hitting natural science especially hard because the wonders of nature have great problems competing with all the man-made trash people are being exposed to. It is very hard to learn young people to observe the subtle and partly hiidden marvels of nature because the modern media-industry are over-stimulating their senses. From an early age people are seduced into believing that they can actually understand the world and experience a good life with very little investment in acquiring knowledge. At least this is the situation in the rich western countries and one of the reasons that we will see great historic shifts emerge from the financial crisis that has just started. In developing nations people still believe in the need of studies and hard work to succeed in any area of life. This will shift the balance of power and the economic and cultural growth to these nations in the future. When their economies improve, this is also were we will see the future generations of mineral collectors.
It is nothing wrong when also aesthetic minerals become investment objects and the focus of collectors who subscribe to the Forbes magazine. It will ensure that many marvelous "natural works of art" will be saved for posterity and the sheer beauty and perceived monetary value of such specimens can also atract new people to become interested in minerals and mineralogy. The real problem is the same as with the the media. There is nothing wrong with entertainment and entertaining books may even teach people to read. Only when all the books, magazines and TV-programs compete in being the most entertaining and there is nothing left challenging people to in-depth studies of anything, our whole culture will suffer. If in the same way we are now shifting the balance in museums, mineral shows, in the internet etc. to worshipping only the most aesthetic and costly specimens of a small handful of the known mineral species, it will have an effect on the way collections are being built and on the general perception of what it takes to be a "successfull " mineral collector. There are actually hundred times more devoted collectors of minerals focusing on locality collections, self-collected or traded minerals or systematic collections than collectors of the most showy specimens. The way the hobby is being presented today does not reflect this because these activities requires more studying and field-work than the spending of money and thus will not attract the attention of show organizers, dealers, magazines and even museum boards in the same way as the competition for the most "valuable" specimens. It is not to discredit the many excellent displays of "fine minerals" at the Tucson shows, but in my view there could have been less tourmalines and other common species and more unique US localities and specimens presented as " American mineral treasures" last year - i.e. minerals first described from US localities and US minerals the study of which had resulted in important contributions to science. It is easy to see that "mineral treasures" as defined by such an exhibit was narrowed down to mostly aesthetic and costly trophy-collector specimens with little or no focus on the scientific, historic, cultural or economic impact of the minerals found, extracted and studied in the USA.
I think Jordi has put an important question to us. We have all a responsibility to prevent a further shift away from the study and appreciation of mineralogy and minerals in general towards a focus only on the beauty and aesthetics of specimens regardless of species, locality or rarity.

Knut

[mraffordable]

I know that the majority of forum posters are geologists and scientists and as such are not interested in the metphysics of crystals and minerals but I had to weigh in on this topic with my observations. I happen to believe in the "mystical" properties of stones and cystals and from a shop owners point of view, I see many people who are being drawn to specimens for their metaphysical properties and not the asthetic beauty of the piece. These people will usually do some further research into the specimen that they need and become better informed as to the geologic/chemical properties. I guess in a nutshell, us mystics are creating another group of rockhounds who don't neccessarily look to the outer beauty of a piece but see the inner beaty that nature intended. The trend in my shop is for people to prefer "rough" samples of stones as opposed to cut and polished or even tumbled stones. I, for one, am happy to see that.

[TheBrickPrinter]

keldjarn wrote in a previous post on this topic:
"The total lack of in-depth programs demanding intellectual attention is frightening to a European. When people are trained to have an attention span of less than 2 minutes (also before th next commercial), how can you expect them to find pleasure in taking the time necessary to make in-depth studies of anything ? That is why there is also an increased focus of beauty over mineralogy. "

I agree almost totally with this statement. But in a really off the wall observation that will probably bring raised eyebrows I think this problem partially emanates from the type of toys that children are raised on. After a 6 year personal study of "LEGO People", I have honestly come to the conclusion that those that are raised with them have a much better grasp of what it takes to make "in-depth studies" -for to achieve anything in LEGO by requiires considerable time and three dimensional thought. The Scandinavians, Germans, Belgiums (?), and Dutch all were raised in that tradition. At least a much larger percentage than in the USA. Although not done in a scientific method, I have found that of the hundreds of scientists, engineers, chemists, software designers I have met and posed the question "Did you play with LEGO when you were a child" at least 80% said they did-many still do. Never asked many mineralogists as simply not that many and have not come into contact with that many. I would bet if they are less than 40 years old, that they did also.

Kids today simply do not build complex models like many used to do --whether plastic or wooden or erector sets. Today they have toys already made for them, There is no process of construction and therefore little care about the process. They do not want to create the computer games that they play--they simply want to play with them.

But I must admit that I am guilty also as I float from one interest to another. Never quite have achieved any really in-depth study of anything--but at least have dug below the surface of a lot things.

[Gail]

Jordi wrote: It is true that MAD collectors do well displaying what they think other people would like to see.

I don't even think that is necessarily true, I think a lot of MAD and HAMS people posted what THEY like to see.

I like looking at the minerals we chose, otherwise..why own them?