FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[John S. White]

Am I the only one who is appalled by the practice of including the names of former owners of specimens in captions with photographs of mineral specimens? Unfortunately, examples abound in the new publication by The Mineralogical Record “Mineral Collections in California.” Astute readers will recognize that in numerous cases the specimen labelled “Ex so and so collection” was never in that person’s collection at all but was part of his or her inventory. I fail to see the reason for this apart from being eager to boast over having a specimen that was not good enough for its former owner. I fail to see the justification for publishers agreeing to include this information in the captions. I greatly respect collectors who have the good sense to eschew this practice, allowing their specimens to stand on their own rather than hoping to earn greater respect because they formerly were in the collection of some more or less prominent other collector.

[Debbie Woolf]

I do not see the necessity for this information in a publication but I do like the history of ownership that comes with a specimen.

[alfredo]

The one situation where I do appreciate seeing an "ex-so-and-so's collection" is when So-and-so was the field collector, or a locality specialist for the area, so the annotation lends some extra circumstantial evidence for the accuracy of the locality. Likewise if the species is difficult to identify and the So-and-so was a mineralogist. Otherwise, as you say, John, it's meaningless fluff. Especially if said So-and-so is still alive, when it might mean "not good enough to keep".

[Jordi Fabre]

[Bob Harman]

In general, I like or at least don't mind, having the provenance of a piece as part of its label. It seems to be the norm in some other type collectibles as well as minerals. But, for me, the provenance should ideally be an add on type label as the true original label for each piece should not have any previous owners, other than the original collector. BOB

[Carles Millan]

[alfredo]

Yes, indeed, that's why I wrote it "might" mean... I've changed my collecting focus too over the years, from Bolivia minerals to (currently) Japan minerals. Collecting would be boring if we had to keep the same focus our whole lives.

[Fiebre Verde]

Having this information is always good, disclosing it publicly is questionable.
As a collector, and for all the reasons mentioned by others, this information can be a double-edged sword when made public.
I am more than happy to know that I am buying a specimen that used to be in Joe’s, Jack’s, or Cathy’s collection (Especially if I know and have interacted with the ex-owners), but that information doesn’t add much value in my view.
And if I think it does impact the selling price, I just walk away.

[rweaver]

I for one like to keep all the old labels I get with my minerals. But I only use the EX when I know it comes out of a old collection, and not dealer stock. The Little Three Topaz could be one of those that was collected by Bill Larson on a field trip with Josie Scripps and then in her collection since they were both field collectors in San Diego. Bill drove Josie around collecting minerals just like I did. She had her rules about minerals found on those trips.

[Roger Warin]

With very few exceptions, I don’t sell minerals. My collection has become a Supermassive Black Hole of Beginner Rocks.
That said, the best specimens often have a history of their own and that creates a certain legend. Recalling the facts remains a positive comment.
To talk about the King of minerals, the diamond, what a great story that links the French Blue from Tavernier to the Hope !.

[Peter Megaw]

I think that for serious publication purposes "ex-so and so" should pass the same minimum hurdle that being on currency or postage stamps does (at least in the US)...you gotta be dead. I think it's historically germane to note if a piece belonged to Roebling, Romero or Pinch but (although I want to keep the labels with the piece) until someone IS history it isn't. Personally I'm a bit embarrassed and mystified when someone puts ex-Megaw on a caption or posting, and would prefer they not...but if they own the rock it's up to them, remembering that as long as I am still around to be asked why I "got rid" of the piece they are taking the risk I will give a less than value-enhancing answer.

Note that I said "minimum" hurdle because I agree with John that simply passing through a dealer's hands does not merit adding another name to the "ex-X" list. I also share his disdain for labeling "iconic" specimens with extended pedigrees listing everyone who ever previously owned the piece, even if just long enough to add their, name to the list and pass it on. In these cases I would argue that taste would decree that at least there should be fewer names in the "ex-X" department than there are lines of information on the species and locality...

I realize there are now vanity stamps where you can pay to put your picture...or your dog's...or your favorite mineral specimen on them. To some degree that is analogous with the publication John is citing...the individuals paid for, and in most cases wrote, the content for their personal contributions, so what they include is up to them and a matter of taste. That is different from a professionally produced and/or peer-reviewed publication. But again, much of the content in our most esteemed mineral "hobby" publications is volunteered and I'll happily tolerate a few extra "exs" in the captions as the price for the content we receive monthly or bimonthly.

[Harjo]

Apart from the reasons Alfredo gave, I have the impression that the 'ex-a, ex-b, ex-c, ex-whoever) is merely part of the hyperbole used to add extra value to a specimen.
This 'ex so and so' seems to be so important in some circles that they're willing to pay an extra buck for a specimen. As an investor one simply has to think of something to make the investment increase its value. Pump it around, add even more names and create a nice mineral collecting bubble :-)
Apart from the 'ex so and so' some collectors seem to be very vulnerable to often ludicrous verbiage used to describe how fantastic, unique, special, best of, interesting, etc etc an often mediocre specimen is.

[Bob Carnein]

Vanity and insecurity seem to go hand in hand--aren't we all susceptible to some degree?

[Tony L. Potucek]

Simply put, I abhor the practice in any publication. Keep the information in the provenance records (and all labels) but it is not necessary to publish unless there are historical (deceased collector) reasons to do so. Thanks for bringing up this point, John. See you in Denver!

tlp

[lluis]

Well, Tony and all

I have no position on this. I like to read provenance in a photo, and I love even more to have the collection of labels in my now specimen.
But one time, when I let a very nice (by the way, bought from Jordi...) El Horcajo pyro, I was asked to let it so be photographed for a publication. I had no trouble, and I bring it. When asked to place my name as owner, I said that I pass, and publisher asked me "why so? have you not paid the piece? It is not yours?..." when I answered that by sure I have paid it and is mine, he answered, that well, then place your name
Which I think that is just normal.

And, as a quote, I remain collecting what I begin to collect from when I was very young, around 8 y.o. One time destroyed.... (I learned very young that to have an hygroscopic material living in front of sea is not a good idea) and one sold (I became very depressed when I saw the collection of Mr. Folch many, many years ago, when still in Via Laietana (then... now Pau Claris) in Barcelona. But later I continued... (and I collect several things...)

Say me odd.... :-)

With best wishes

Lluís