FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Jeff]

I agree that indicating who a specimen once belonged to in a publication might not be necessary. However, to know who owned a specimen before I obtain it is interesting to me. When an old label is provided with a specimen, I always try to research the person(s) who previously owned it. To me, knowing more about prior owners gives the specimen a history -- and to some extent, an additional "personality". It is particularly a pleasant surprise when I find a specimen I want to purchase which belonged to someone I have known or who was a good friend, but who has passed away.

[Peter]

II fully agree with Jordi and almost entirely with John. Alfredos point adding indeed it is very interesting if it comes form a field collector, much more so than a serie of 5 dealers where the specimen wished through in a few months or a couple of years... those are NO REAL collectors, they are simply DEALERS.

As Jordi wrote, Indeed the reasons for a real collector to sell may very well be a little more complex then "it was no longer good enough"

Now I have not yet seen the issue. Various personalities have various needs. The insecurity mentioned comes sometimes with rather recent collectors but is typically linked to personality. Anyone, not only could, but should ask the advice from a few independent collectors and if they know a TRUSTABLE (do not necessarily equal "reputable" dealer with a big ad).

However there is a huge difference with very insecure people, for whatever reason, who need reinforcement from their clan of collectors or dealers.

In a publication I would put only such information for some specimens.

I have a very old exceptional Topaz from the Urals. its history is lined with personal friends until the 1940, some deceased, two still alive. It was one of the favorite specimens in all of these collectors specimens and is treasured by myself. That one I would certainly add such information to, although two great collectors and one dealer are still alive.

Another specimen, an aquamarine found in 1910 by Professor Herman Banks father, I would also ad such information, as with a few others.

I have no problem if someone puts a row of previous collectors, however there is absolutely no enhancement whatsoever in the specimens attractiveness, value just because 5 dealers "had it" for a brief moment in time.

Another example, an Elbaite found by john McLean at the Himalaya Mine in July 1988, went straight to Bill Larssons vault, and remained there until January 1989 when he took it to his store to prepare it for a Tucson exhibit featuring this one extraordinary crystal and many from a recent find of Elbaite from the Royal Pocket, which lower extension found in April 1989 was named the Million dollar pocket (the upper half had the best crystals by the way).

Bill is still active, alive, likely for some more decades. I would certainly add his name for the reason that the specimen by itself is extraordinary. Anyone who really appreciate great specimens, and have studied thousands of tourmalines from this mine would immediately recognize its uniqueness. It is not for sale. Value s at it is, no matter who owned it, or owns it now.

It is about a million times better and rarer than a big quartz specimen exhibited in Tucson with an over exaggerated name and price. It would fit outside a museum of natural history to attract people, and let kids and adults touch it. Such is the hausse, trying to make so so mediocre specimens lok attractive and get someone to put out huge money for nothing, like the tulip scam in Holland i the 1600s.

Just my take on things.

[lluis]

Hi, Peter

Well, not minerals.... (even if they grow in Earth...)
What you say "tulip scam" in The Netherlands, was just a stock option market collapse. As we had many times in our time lapse and as was many times before and would be even more times after...

Just maybe too picky... Stock options markets is or all a scam or it is not a scam....
Depend on who sees it....
To me, a serious way to destroy money.... But if people like it.....

With best wishes

Lluís

[Peter]

Hi Lluis,
Yes, too much is a scam, I agree and as I recall, although I read it 30+years ago, a tulip bud value in this "stock market" was huge money, 1000 gulden or something ridiculous.
Cheers

[Jesse Fisher]

Personally, if I am going to include the provenance of a specimen with the photo caption, I think it should add some sort of historic context to the specimen, i.e.: the specimen has come from the collection of an individual or institution that is recognized for it's past contribution to the science of mineralogy and/or the history of mineral collecting. For my own personal records, I like to keep as complete a list of past owners as I can as it adds "traceability" to a specimen in case there are questions about the veracity of the attributed identification or location.

I sometimes think, however, that adding a genealogy of recent (non-historic) owners can seem more like name-dropping than providing important background information on the specimen in question. But then, we all engage in this business/hobby for our own reasons. I have come across many collectors who seem insecure enough in knowing their own tastes that they need some sort of independent validation that the specimens they have likely spent a lot of money on are really worth having. Citing the names of famous or well-known past owners of the specimen might be one way to do this.

[lluis]

Good afternoon, Peter

Well, to me stock options market is just gambling...
If anyone wish to play, well, odds are that he will lose....
That depend on each one and oh his/her/their financial recourses....

Price of a bulb on this time was the price that people wished to pay for. Then. one day, no one wished to pay such, panic, crush and crisis... Maybe I remember something similar not so many years ago, in buildings/flats and so?
And same from many years ago in roman times with a crisis like the one we are/have suffering/ed....
In a hobby, price is the one people wish to pay for.
And, if my memory serves me still well, Mr. Conklin said in MR that if a mineral is sold, it is because it is still priced too low.... (I have pieces from Mr. Conklin... Besides, paid very reasonably. Not sold to me by him... By another dealer...)
I have two Poldevaartites (I had three; one was gifted...) Poldevaartites, not olmiites. Very nice all... The two first ones I paid around 200€ each one. Third, bigger, later bought (around 20 years later) and nicer, just cost me 30Euros.... Ah, and that last with provenance!

Market is as is...

With best wishes

Lluís

[texasdigger]

I do not think value should be significantly affected by provenance however I really enjoy knowing the provenance of minerals I have purchased. Most of the time you get nothing more than a fresh label, no big deal. Occasionally you get a unique, old label. Even rarer when you get the full provenance. I like it a lot. Occasionally you can track the collector and there are good stories to be read about certain mineralogist, collectors, shop owners or all the above together. I always ask for any older labels and expect them if they exist when Im purchasing a specimen. I dont like to give my old labels up either but I feel its part of the deal when you sell a specimen. This is one of my favorite provenance sets.

[SteveB]

[John S. White]

I am delighted by all of the responses. Perhaps my use of "appalled" was a little too strong, "troubled" would have been better. And I want to make very clear that records of a mineral's provenance are important and should be preserved. I will also agree that there can be special circumstances where adding "Ex so and so's collection" is appropriate.

If this discussion results in fewer Ex's in photo captions I feel that is a very good development.

[markbeckett]

Hi There! I must say that here in CORNWALL UK (at least), if you're a systematic type thinker, precise location, former 'find date' and 'who's collection' from before, are, ALL VERY IMPORTANT DATA, for ...say..even the value of a specimen. I will never buy a specimen from an unknown locality (btw I only collect Cornwall), even if it's a nice one. In Cornwall there are more different minerals/species, specimens than almost anywhere globally, for it's size! (please correct me if I'm wrong) and to ME (at least) this requires and deserves a complete sustainment of full data sets for every single mineral specimen within my collection.

As far as as 'collector labels' go - it helps US very much to recognise or even 'marvel' at the exuberence of past collectors.Whole 'stories' are linked to many of the finds, locations, history, and even social mobility. Many of the great Cornwall collectors are/were individually known to have been associated with the various specimen resources that have become available over time. For instance, I have recently been aquiring a of lot specimens from the old (1930s- 2015...I think) Jim Knight Collection - it has been such an experience to witness the deconstruction of such a wonderful collection; but, as it happens, I recently found out that Knight was in close association with the 'famous?)(RIP) Dick Barstow. The collection is a huge hoard of interesting, fine, unusual eclectics and Very special specimens. I, reallly like His stuff! Where would I be withought his beautifully,and logic/systematic labelling ability?. Most of his stuff, for instance, to me, is worth more than any money could buy - and I will only 'pass these on' on the logical, deconstruction of my collection (I have no children or direct family who would appreciate them), so leaving them behind would without any stewardship would be anathema to me. Importantly - there are collector labels with well over two thirds of my collection, with my notes etc that will always accompany every secimen that I will eventually sell. Collector labels, for me at least can be up to a good third of the value of what I may pay for a the piece...also there have been the inevitable, unscrupulous individuals that have falsified specimen info, criminally, that have been identified within the 'industry' over time - BYTHEIR LABELS.

I only collect Cornwall - so I'm very sorry if I have offended anyone else's motives/abilities and any other facets of our wonderful hobby :-)

Thanks v much for reading me, Best Regards - MARK BECKETT

[Jesse Fisher]

I suspect that John is alternately troubled and appalled by (and I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong) the current fashion amongst those who adhere to the current paradigm of collecting almost exclusively according to aesthetic (rather than scientific or historic) criteria to cite like-minded collectors who may have formerly owned the piece in question. Being the social creatures that we are, this perhaps fulfills a need to have "bragging rights" about something one has acquired.

Personally, I'm much more likely to crow about having acquired a nice specimen from an obscure and long closed mine in Northern England that has a hand-written label from Arthur Russell dated 1925, than about which one of my contemporary collectors may have owned the specimen last year. But we all do this collecting thing for our own personal reasons. To each their own.

[Turbo]

I agree with almost everyone that it is unnecessary in publication unless the article is about that person's collection. For record keeping, I love provenance sets. I'm a specialist, so I like knowing when a specimen came out and what find or pocket it was part of, and labels often help fitting a specimen in the timeline. It's also nice to be able to contact previous owners for further details. It matters to me if a specimen was rare for 1970 but not rare for 2012. To me, there are so many details that can affect value and collectibility, that if known, could change the game. That's why I pay close attention to material coming out of the Viburnum Trend and try to learn as much as I can about older material. At the same time, it is easy to get carried away. There may be a handful of specimens coming out of an idle locality that are nothing special esthetically, but should they be worth a lot because they are rare? Probably not. But a small find that is the best material in the last two decades may be worth something.

I'm also trying to help prevent specimens from the Viburnum Trend from suffering the same locality lumping problem as Tri-State. Pretty soon many of those mines are going to be connected.