FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Greg Toomey]

This is my first post in this forum (after reading posts for over 1 year and joining 5 months ago). First of all - I am not a mineralogist and probably never will be one (although I am always trying to improve my mineral knowledge), as I have a more creative and artistic background. That being said, l have always tried to immerse myself in the sciences, going back to my college days taking calculus and astrophysics courses while majoring in art.

I have been a serious mineral collector for almost 20 years and have been studying the history of mineral collecting and mineral clubs in the United States for the past 4 years (I have perused and made thousands of copies of pages of countless years of Lapidary Journal, The American Mineralogist, Desert Magazine, et al). What is being addressed on this forum topic is nothing new - it goes back probably to the earliest days of humans using and admiring minerals and gems. Unfortunately, there have always been schisms in our hobby (one example being the topic at hand), another example being whether to leave a crystal as is for its natural beauty, facet and "improve" it into jewelry, or use it for scientific experiments and/or study. There are many more as I'm sure most of you already know.

Systematic collections where once very popular, as were "strategic collections" during World War II and the countless polished agate and geode collections during the "rockhound heyday" of the fifties and sixties. The term "pretty rocks" was often derisively aimed at the collections of women mineral collectors. However, beautiful and "trophy" specimens have always been popular and always will be - look at most old photographs or artist depictions of museum mineral displays through the centuries.

I think what is different today is that people are sharing their collections on the internet and in books and magazines, and they want to share what appeals to them and, I believe, what they perceive will appeal to others. Not that many years ago, Mineral books were geared strictly to the scientific community or to the field collector, and people's collections were either absorbed by institutions, sometimes purchased by dealers, or usually discarded to who knows where when the collector died. I wish that there had been more attention placed on the collectors when they were alive and their collections when they were intact.

Beauty is, most importantly, in the eye of the beholder, and that eye changes over time. Beauty is a visual and emotional response, often coming from one's own knowledge and experiences. Is it strictly the appearance of a mineral, or is it in knowing the mineralogical process that a mineral went through to be what it is today? What Jordi likes and what I like and what others like don't mean a thing unless we as individuals are comfortable with what we like and that we accept others for what they like. I think we are experiencing a renaissance in mineral collecting, and as such, there are many new people who have fallen in love with the beauty of minerals, and are just beginning to, or will learn in the future, about mineralogy. Give them time. Beginning or advanced collectors, aesthetic or species collectors - we are all part of this wonderful and ongoing learning experience known as mineral collecting!

Greg

[Jordi Fabre]

Absolutely Greg!
BTW welcome here, I think you did a fantastic resume of the different clouds/ visions of this topic.

Gail: of course you should chose the minerals you like looking it. The choiced of MAD and HAMS minerals offered via Mineralogical Record is the topic.
If the majority of members of MAD and HAMS have rare, unusual or not so showy minerals on their collections, why don't select more of them often to be displayed?. MAD and HAMS are extremely popular actually due the media's impulse, so is a kind of responsibility too, to instruct mineralogy to young people or beginners. That's why I'm so persistent (outside my own character ;-) trying that the vision of the mineralogy will be more extended.

Of course, that's a general view, in fact is not too much related with you and Jim. As I know so well, you like, and you display, not only showy specimens but also the RUNS (Rare, Unusual, Not so Showy ones).

Jordi

[TheBrickPrinter]

And in my case you are affiliated with a certain industry--in was the paint and coatings industry-- and you want all those that are or have been used in paint throughout history. (or the natural equivalents of synthetic ones). Quite a list and quite a story. Some of the most interesting articles I have read are by art historians who analyzed the mineral content of the artifacts or paintings they are studying. Now that would be a good theme also for a MinRec compedium. Years ago I remember seeing an awesome calendar of some of the finest specimens available put out by the Glidden Paint Company. Often wondered what happened to that collection. MInerals and art intersect directly as most art is essentially formed from a mineral derived medium.

As www.spam.org Hurlburt wrote in his terrific book Minerals and Man:
"Minerals have furnished man not only with the essential materials of civilization but also with his most beautiful and precious ornaments."

available from Amazon today for a mere .89 to $14.95

[Gail]

About the rare and less "attractive" minerals... Perhaps they are not photographed like they often do the more difficult gem quality photos...when you put mineral photos in MinRec you have to have top notch photographs in high resolution. The expense is great and since the majority of photos are of minerals that people struggle to photo themselves, it makes sense that when a publication is asking for high resolution, you tend to send those photos, right?