FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Carles Millan]

Hi!

Lluís is right. I honestly think this topic had better be split into two:

- "Can we accept specimens not perfect by nature?" (I usually do not mind much, provided it is true, i.e. the defect was clearly made before extraction)

- "Can we accept specimens with man made damage? If so, to what degree?" (I usually do mind)

Mixing both subjects maybe means missing the point.

[Peter]

I also have more patience with naturally damaged. In one mine I found an incredible gem heliodore 35 years after that pocket had been mined. I retrieved it from its matrix but a blasting only some 30 cm away had broken it in half and a pocket eruption some 1770 million years ago had broken of the bottom part of!

[Peter Megaw]

Clearly a big crystal group with a huge whanger on the tip of the most prominent crystal is more glaringly imperfect than a tiny ding on the tip of a subsidiary crystal that can be turned to the back. I agree with whoever said, perfection is just a question of how closely you look...everything is imperfect at some scale...where we draw the line is a very personal decision based on financial resources, taste and collecting focus. if your focus is, or includes, freedom from damage so be it. If your focus is to get the best of something and the best you can get is damaged, you live with it until better comes along. Clearly fashion comes into this, more damage was tolerated pre-Wilbur than now, but not in all markets.

In principal splitting natural and man-made damage sounds good, but naturally damaged or contacted pieces are nonetheless damaged and the buying public buys or not accordingly. From the buyers side it's what you are comfortable with...

[Carles Millan]

To Peter:

>Is your husband or wife perfect?
>And how about friends?

Of course, you cannot expect your spouse neither your friends to be perfect. As fas as I know, there is not such thing as a perfect person.

But a perfect mineral specimen is not uncommon at all. I bet most of you, perhaps yourself, own at least one. I don't have a great collection, but I can swear there are several pieces here that can be considered perfect. So there is nothing wrong for a collector to look for undamaged specimens if he/she likes to and can afford to purchase them.

[parfaitelumiere]

I try to have less ad less chips on the specimens.
But it's really difficult to hav minor faults on the specimens,I think some dings can be acceptables,I prefer minor dings,or a repaired nice specimen than an ugly complete and unrepaired specimen.
That's why I'm collecting specimens around 2-3cm,it's really easier to have nice shape,good crystals and colors,a good translucence and near mint specimen.

[alfredo]

As Dr. Fred Pough once noted, a damaged specimen is more educational, and easier to identify, because you can see what type of cleavage or fracture it has!

[Joan Kureczka]

Good points everyone.

I also think the over emphasis by some on absolute perfection is what's driving the sort of Laboratory efforts.... ranging from simple repairs to reconstruction... that may be questionable to at least some.

[lluis]

Good afternoon

Well, they certainly could be more educational, but they do not fulfill my aesthetics requirements... :-)
I love to learn, and do not mind to butcher an specimen to get info, but I preserve for my colection the undamaged, not butchered ones.... :-)
I also collect cut stones, but I justify myself thinking that they were cut from chunks of gemmy material, not from undamaged but imperfect specimens...

By the way, was said that before Mr. David Wilber was more tolerance for damage.

I maybe wrong, but Mr. Stevenson, whos colection was sold in internet had a nice array of very attractive pieces, all undamaged and exquisite (at least for my taste; undamaged absolute). And I suppose that he was older than Mr. Wilber...
Just Mr. Wilber is a very prominent collector (woooooooooowww, his Phosphophillite; it is THE phosphophillite)

With best wishes

Lluís

P.D.: a fan of Mr. Wilber!

[alfredo]

ALL specimens are damaged. No exceptions. The question is only what is the maximum acceptable size of such damage?

[Greg Toomey]

Very excellent comments and points of view.

For me, when it comes to damaged versus "undamaged," it depends on the size, aesthetics and rarity of the specimen.

I like cabinet to large cabinet minerals, so I tend to overlook small damage on the larger minerals that don't take away from the impact or my pleasure in viewing them. Many appear undamaged to the naked eye, and others appear undamaged until you look very closely or stare at them for any length of time. That's fine - they are large, bold and dramatic. Try looking hard at the details of your house and you will see imperfections everywhere, but when you are inside or outside you enjoy the whole look of the place - it's comfortable for you.

Aesthetic specimens are just that - aesthetic. If the overall appearance is not affected by small imperfections (or damage), I will overlook the contacts and wilbers. If they do affect me, I will think "What a neat specimen, too bad about that broken crystal, or scratch, or...," and I will move on and not add it to my collection.

As for rarity, I don't collect "rarity" minerals, but I do have many unusual and "one-time pockets" of minerals. I have a few Chinese specimens that I obtained 10-15 years ago from very small mines or pockets, and they have peripheral damage that doesn't bother me as I appreciate the unusual crystal structure or color or the combination of the associated minerals on the specimen.

I have a few single crystals, and I tend to want them as perfect as I can afford. The same is true for the few miniature and small cabinet pieces that I own. If the mineral or occurrence is more common and plentiful, I again strive for "perfection," but perfection for me is what I can see with the naked eye and a cursory glance under a loupe ( loupes will drive perfectionists insane! ).

One incident that I witnessed I want to share: At one of the more recent Tucson shows at the Westward Look, a very prominent and wealthy collector was having a large jaw-dropping specimen that he had just purchased from a very respected dealer being examined and admired by another very respected dealer. After about 2-3 minutes, the dealer said, "Oh no, this is bad, I see a broken ------ crystal right behind the bottom edge." The collector was visibly very uncomfortable, and my first thought was "What a killer specimen you have, and now you don't seem to be enjoying it! Something is very wrong with this picture." But, then again, It didn't fit his standard and I think we all can relate to it on various levels.

The bottom line is that perfection for me is what is acceptable to me - I'm the one overseeing my collection and enjoying it. The same is true for others - I would think that if you are happy with and accepting of the condition of the minerals in your collection, you are enjoying it as well. And that is what really matters.

Greg

[bugrock]

Lack formal training at any level in mineral science and my main avocational interest is in Lepidoptera but there seem to be similar aspects with respect to
aesthetics and the value of specimens in both areas. Perhaps some of these parallels are a bit loose but bear with me.


Locality:

There are those who will reject anything that is not perfect, but if a butterfly normally found no further north than Texas shows up in the
Yukon is that not of interest even if it has ragged wings? A damaged but documented mineral specimen from an unexpected/uncommon location
certainly has elevated value.


Size:

I've known collectors who will reject Lepidoptera specimens that are not of "normal" size. For minerals even if the gross specimen is shabby
an examination under the lens or scope may show some beautiful micro xl's.


Identity:

Some Lepidopterists seem very disturbed when a specimen cannot be determined by visual inspection but will not allow dissection of the
abdomen which in many cases will permit determination but "damages" the specimen. Well in the mineral world there are so many indeterminate
specimens. Yes it takes only a small piece to do formal analysis but my thoughts turn to "solid solution series". A mineral collector who insists that
all his specimens be an end member seems an absurdity.


Atypical Appearance:

Now here is where perfection seeking Lepidopterists and mineral collectors may agree. We all like the perfect text book specimen but "freaks" (aberrations in
insects; atypical xl forms, colors, pseudomorphs etc in minerals; for that matter upside-down printing in stamps, overstrikes in coins) demand extra attention
and a high price if on the market. We pay extra attention to and an extra price for these "imperfections". But are they not quite natural? How many seek an explanation as to why these anomalies exist? And do these "freaks" inform us with regard to "typical" biological and geological processes?

Should mineral collectors insist that all xls be formed just as in the text-books? But then we should throw out all those oddly surfaced and terminated monstrosities
that show up in so many locations. No, such weird and wonderful forms peak our interest.


Conclusion:

I very much agree with commentary before that there is no "perfect" specimen. Look hard enough and there will be a flaw (man made). But nature creates for us
many flaws. And yet we are willing to pay extra for those! We love freaks.


For More Discussion (perhaps a new thread):

Another thought, and possibly more disturbing for some. Can we discuss in more detail why we collect? Personally I believe there is a collector's
personality. I collected stamps and coins a bit in younger days. Then moved on to butterflies and moths (which gave rise to a few scientific papers despite
lack of formal training in entomology, but with the help of many mentors) and now I am deep into minerals. I'm not sure if there is a psychologist or two on this forum but it seems there is no doubt that "collecting personality" ['disorder'?] exists and I would suspect most attending this forum are card-carrying members. Yes, there is an excellent recent series of articles on this in Min Rec but we could share some personal observations and testimonials.

[nurbo]

Hi all,
I try not to impose any rules on the minerals I collect, if I like it I get it, sometimes I get home and find dings etc but we dont live in a perfect world and sometimes they add to a specimen, for example, I much prefer botryoidal Malachite with a chunk missing so I can see the banding inside. It seems restrictive to me to only collect perfect things and I figure if you reject anything with the minutest fault you will miss out on some great specimens.

two other thoughts Ive had on reading this thread ...

If you only want to collect perfect specimens doesnt that mean you can only collect lab grown stuff and maybe one or two single floaters?

Are collectors of perfect specimens collectors or investors?

[John S. White]

Guess I will add my two cents. One observation that may be made is that the more one specializes, the more one is tempted to acquire specimens that are less than pristine. My primary collection is single crystals and very few of these do not have some minor damage of some sort. Some have major damage buy their fascination for me is not diminished. The single crystal collection would be very small, indeed, if I were to limit my acquisitions to flawless crystals. The same may be said of my quartz collection. In it I am celebrating the diversity of the species, and in order to do that one must include many specimens that are seriously damaged, and many that have been polished to some degree. There are numerous collectors, like our esteemed leader Jordi, who would never own a polished specimen but cutting and polishing some specimens is the only way in which we can see and appreciate certain features and so I see it as a necessary evil, if you will.

The pyrite twin I recently showed a photo of on this Forum is a good example of why I am not too demanding about quality. It has lots of damage on it, but it is the ONLY twin of this type that I have ever seen in all of my life-long exposure to a vast number of specimens. Because of that fact it is, to me, a highly valuable specimen even though it also has the fault of its locality not being known.

It is also true that most of my single crystals and quartz specimens were relatively inexpensive. I am highly unlikely to spend a large sum of money on a seriously damaged single crystal no matter how rare or how unique it may be. The pyrite twin cost me nothing, it was a gift.

[Peter Megaw]

To Carlos...of course my wife is perfect, just ask her!

And I am perfectly satisfied with the specimens in my collection...some are perfect for dispay because they have the highest freedom from damage (ot any origin) and some perfect for study since I don;t have to worry about damaging them.

My major point was, perfect for me is probably different from perfect for you...I collect for ME...if others find my pieces interesting that's great, but I most actively do not collect to anyone else's standards. However, I certainly do not I ignore market realities (hard to do with some of today's prices)...I merely hope others do...sellers when they've unervalued something I want; and buyers who are more tolerant of my ideas of imperfection than I am.

[Tony L. Potucek]

A rule book has never been needed by me to collect. It is about what me, the collector likes, regardless of the infatuation. I have always collected what I liked and there is no other standard used to guide me. Not size, not rarity, not the sales hype, not the deal of the day, and certainly not what is considered in vogue for the time. The specimen has to attract me--that is all. Yes, I am very picky about damage--this coming from a guy who personally sweated, crawled, choked, but gleefully collected a lot of wulfenite underground, including several ventures at the San Francisco mine, where specimen delicacy reigns. You don't have to have damage to appreciate the mineral. There are many specimens to choose from. For me, I won't get stupid about expensive purchases, either. It's about choices--time spent in Spain or Ecuador birding, or wondering why I would break the bank for a mineral--wait for one that better meets the pocketbook.

I won't have the most toys and minerals when I die, but I will have toys and minerals I like. For your consideration: Do you know the feeling of turning the case lights on, turning off all of the lights in your mineral room, sipping on a really peaty single malt scotch or an aromatic cabernet with overtones of cherry and chocolate, and traveling the world with your collection? I can look at a specimen or group, remember the acquisition--either personally dug from the ground or purchased--and associate the pleasant experience with the beauty. This is the next best thing for my collecting experience, besides collecitng in the field.