FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Gail]

I have noted that there are minerals enough for everyone, from the poorest to the richest. I refuse to dislike anyone because their rocks are more significant than mine, or they are of less quality than mine. i simply rejoice that they have a collection that they must love, otherwise why collect them?
If some minerals are too expensive, I say no to buying them, after all...it is about what you collect, what takes your breath away, what size...what type...what truly knocks your socks off...but at a price you feel okay about paying.
If you have spare cash to get something good, then it is a decision you make based on what you feel you can afford, this is true throughout the market.
I saw a fluorite in Tucson marked at $300,000.00 and I thought, although beautiful, I had seen better in a friend's cabinet. It is all relative, isn't it?
So, for better or worse, we buy what we can afford and what we deem to be a welcome addition to our collections, right?

[Jordi Fabre]

Absolutely Gail.

Just some doubt about beginners or new people coming to the hobby and maybe getting a distorted vision of this hobby, due to some extremly high prices, specially if they don't correspond to an also extremely high quality, like (apparently) the Fluorite mentioned for you.

Jordi

[Tracy]

Price does not reflect value.
Price does not reflect quality.
Value is not equal to quality.
And, as we are discussing in the parallel "quality" thread:

https://www.fabreminerals.com/forum/Message-Board/viewtopic.php?t=162

quality is defined by subjective as well as objective parameters.

This amateur collector is confused, not to mention a little frightened.

[chris]

Hi John,

I've never been in the Tucson show, but heard the show increases in size every year. I'm not pessimistic by nature nor a specialist of the American market.

However I don't see things exactly as you at a more local (at least French) level. Moreover it might (?) explain in some way the increase of mineral dealers in Tucson. I personally know dealers (who became friends) not attending big shows such as Tucson, Denver, Munich, Ste Marie who experienced last year some of their worst sales since many years. Some of them didn't even get payback from shows' expenditures. In the same time, some more renowned dealers refocused on larger shows as if attending smaller ones didn't payback too. Not to mention less visitors maybe leaving the "real" to "virtual" market on the web ?

Could it be possible to see the increase of large shows as a way for lesser known dealers to make a living from minerals ? In a market going down focusing on very large events could be a way to make a living while limiting costs.

One thing is sure the Internet is revolutionizing the market and could explain some facts reported on this forum.

What do you think ?

Christophe

[keldjarn]

Even if there seems to be conflicting views on the question of trends in mineral pricing, maybe they are all correct - depending on what the observer has witnessed, who he has talked to and previous experiences. It may reflect important changes in the mineral market taking place on a larger scale, and partly due to the internet, more in the view of the public in recent years. I have kept track of the prices I have paid - and observed being asked - for mineral specimens through nearly 40 years. I still have files of the price lists dealers sent out in the 70´ies and 80´ies as well as printouts of internet offering on minerals from certain localities during the last decade. Based on my experience there are minerals that have increased dramatically in price in part due to dwindling supply ( i.e. Mexican adamites, Los Lamentos Wulfenites, Benitoites etc.) Other minerals have had periods - aslo in recent years when prices were rock-bottom for high-quality specimens also compared to 20-30 years ago even if they have increased again recently. Minerals like Charcas Danburites and Moroccan Erythrites and Vanadinites come to my mind. Other minerals like Chinese Scheelites, Bournonites, Cassiterites etc. may be pricey for top-specimens, but these are also wastly superior to their relatively more expensive expensive counterparts from classic localities in Germany and Brittain that wereon the market 20-30 years ago. Not to mention the Chinese stibnites where even expensive top-quality specimens are very affordable compared to the prices asked - and paid for inferior specimens of Japanese Stibnites a few decades ago. Indian Powellites and Cavansite are much cheaper now than a few years back. Exceptional specimens of rare minerals from popular localities like Tsumeb, Franklin/Sterling Hill, Långban, St.Hilaire, The Tip Top mine, Mammoth-St-Anthony mine, Broken Hill and others have skyrocketed in price as they were never plentifull and supply can in no way keep up with the demand. From other localities you can still buy exceptionl specimens, of rarities sometimes one-of-a-kind specimens at very cheap prices.
As Alfredo and others have stated so clearly - it is all a question of supply and demand - that is how a market works. Some of the dealers manage to adapt to these changes in the market and in the demand of the customers. These are very happy with the new trends. Others have merchandise and a business approach which do not sell any more, and these are understandably unhappy. In some cases their merchandise can more profitable be sold over the internet and these dealers stop going to Tucson (Tony Nikitscher of Excalibur minerals did not attend this year.) I believe knowledge and transparency are vital to functioning markets. Especially the internet and increased international travel by collectors and dealers have contributed to this. With an increasing number of dealers and good minerals on the market - and increased total turn-over, even if it is due to new groups of customers and concerns different types of minerals and specimens, it may also be interpreted as a healthy but rapidly changing market. It will be an interesting challenge to see how it develops. There are rewarding and affoprdable niches in this hobby to suite everyone interested in minerals including everytihng from large cabinet specimens to micromounts and from the self-collected to the most expensive trophy-specimens.
Knut

[Ray McDougall]

Free market pricing can be fascinating.

In the excellent separate discussion thread about quality, Alfredo made the good point that going back to the earliest days of mineral collecting, the privileged have always paid high prices (in relative terms) for minerals. When it comes to prices asked and paid (whether in cash or exchange "values"), the true top of the market - primarily collectors with nearly unlimited means in relation to this context - will always be there. However, as historically, that truly top sub-market is comprised of a rather small number of people and really appears to have its own pricing dynamic. Intense competition, exchange transaction pricing and market-making factors, among others, all seem to me to be in a different league in this top collectors circle.

In that same quality discussion, Alfredo also described the collecting community as a pyramid, where most of us are not in that top group (perfectly happily, or otherwise). It's a great analogy, and perhaps now in the context of a pricing discussion the actual shape could be tweaked a little, if we were to try to reflect spending and participants in the mineral market. Considering numbers of specimens that are bought and numbers of collectors acquiring, I'd have thought that rather than the pure straight-line side of a standard pyramid, it is in fact a curve that connects the lower submarkets to higher ones, increasingly steeper to the top sub-market. On the other hand, current pricing by many dealers across the overall mineral market seems to assume some form of escalating straight line pricing model from the top specimens down, rather than such a curve. If this difference exists, it may be by design, in an attempt to give an illusion of a continuous-pricing market and/or create a sense of desirability both at the top and below, it may be in hope that the purchasing trends in sub-markets below the top will rise to such a line, it may unfortunately sometimes be in hope of ensnaring a less experienced collector, or perhaps the straight line approach will simply prove reflective of a pricing miscalculation when compared with actual purchaser behaviour.

Maybe the question then is whether prices asked in the mineral market (anywhere under the small top sub-market) are or will actually be paid so that the straight line model is or becomes real - and further, whether this prices-asked line will continue to rise if the submarket at the top rises. It's difficult to assess, given that actual market transparency can be deceptive and limited (for example, while I obviously make no comment about any minerals or mineral dealers on the internet, the internet a is highly manipulable medium in many ways and there is no requirement of any kind to provide full, true, or even accurate disclosure of anything at all). Only the longer-term performance of the mineral market over time, and any future pricing fluctuations or lack thereof, will tell whether the straight line model for pricing specimens offered is real pricing or artificial pricing (or, to state perhaps more accurately, whether it is pricing that matches amounts purhcasers are willing to pay, or not).

Which leads to Jordi's great question as to why the buyer gets to determine the "real" price. Simple mechanics of offer and acceptance - an offer isn't a deal until there's acceptance. At which point, we're really back to the pure subjectivity of it all (beyond certain quality parameters, as Les Presmyk noted in the quality discussion). I do love it that it still comes back to entirely our own choice as to what to do: although much is in the hands of dealers, this one fact is the freedom (and also sometimes the leverage) of being the collector in the equation.

When one considers the excellent summary points TAK sets out, it's clear that urban field collecting (such as in Tucson) is challenging and even truly hard sometimes. However, pursuing what we each enjoy, enjoying what we find fascinating, and defining our own measuring sticks for ourselves (as opposed to what any other person tells us is a "must-have") is what makes our collections unique, interesting and, in my own personal view, ultimately of real value to ourselves and the hobby. Price really does not equate with value.

Final thought in what inadvertently became a short essay for which clearly none of you asked (apologies!). People often say, and it's true, that discussions about escalating prices have gone on for a long time and increases have continued without correction, so why would it not just keep on going that way? One characteristic of this current market that may prove interesting is that as prices in many parts of the mineral market have risen to new highs, these prices are now in many cases truly substantial amounts of money (for anyone other than those with relatively unlimited means) - for some people, some mineral market prices now contrast poorly with comparatively more favourable purchasing or investment power of the same amount of money outside of minerals, whether in another hobby at a top level, or other things we each value personally, as Frank so insightfully noted. If this comparative gap continues or increases, one could see people continuingly or increasingly choosing to allocate some or all of their funds differently, for a short time or for longer. Who knows? Happily, the aggregate of our own individual free decisions will determine it all.

[Jordi Fabre]

This topic is very interesting for me and that I have more time, I would like to introduce a different view of it. Throughout the discuss, I tried to introduce a concept that for me is very important and that it don't seems to be so important for most of the people who participate on this discussion.

For the vast majority it seems that the price is not something with concrete parameters, but mostly a kind of deal between the dealer and the customer (or victim ;-).
This is not my vision at all. Although each mineral is different and we can't fix an exact price for it, because the value will always depend of the subjective factors, my opinion is that is possible to fix a kind of boundary around the real price. If with a long experience and a background with hundred or thousands if not millions specimens we accept that someone can give an "approximate real price" = ARP for a specimen, then we will simplify the discussion a lot because many things move around this possibility:

- The dealers quoting one mineral using the ARP would have a correct behavior. On the other hand dealers adding zeros to the ARP would not be using common sense and then his behavior would be debatable.

- The minerals then would have the chance to be catalogued as are many of the other collectibles. Coins, stamps, art...most hobbies have catalogues where the price of the items are fixed and this seems to be very important for customers. Why do minerals not have the chance to have an ARP? Could this be the reason for the success of the mineral's web pages where prices are fixed creating themselves a kind of catalogue?. Just to give an example, on my web page I have minerals displayed for more than 5 years and we never changed their prices, the time pass and just by this fact the prices move down making they more attractive to the customers. This it is proved by the fact that regularly we sell some long term (on our web pages) specimens, just because its price, due the time passed, becomes an ARP for customers.

- Accepting that ARP exist then I can connect with an other extremely interesting topic also posted on this forum by TAK, "what defines a mineral's "quality?":

https://www.fabreminerals.com/forum/Message-Board/viewtopic.php?t=162

Tracy ask the reasons which a mineral have more or less quality. Finding this reasons then we could also fix the parameters to get ARP for minerals, so answering the topic of "what defines a mineral's quality?" I think that we can also find the reasons of the (apparently) widely different prices during the modern period of mineralogy.

Jordi

[James Catmur]

Jordi

I am sure I remember reading that years ago a dealer used to publish a list of, in your terms, ARPs. I cannot remember who it was but imagine someone else will remember. It would be nice to see a copy, just for reference! I do wonder if one could build such a price giude using web sales.

James

[Carles Curto]

But (and I repeat) prices of minerals are especially relative. On stamps, coins, etc., the item is more or least always the same. Not in minerals, so, a list of mineral prices will be always relative (orientative if you prefer) for "normal" minerals but significant pieces have single prices.
I believe the problem is not on habitual mineral dealers. It is on this strange "modern" typifications as "fashion", "top", "killers"... Just publicity, just value judgements, just simple wind. Then, obviously, prices can be miserably absurds. Against the vice of to ask for there is the virtue of not to give...

[lluis]

Good afternoon

I agree completely with Carles.
Stamps, there are many pieces that are more or less equal; The ones that only one or two are known, prices are question of how badly anyone wants it.
Same with coins.
Then, there are differences in conservation, well centered, stained, fresh, big margins,.....and so many other things.
Price of catalog is orientative, and generally speaking serves only as a reference. Form dealer to dealer, it could have had at 80, 60, 70, 50, 40,.....or even lesser percentage of its catalogue price....

For coins, in a swiss catalog I have seen some ultra rare coins prized as LHP liebhaberpreis, the price that who wants to have it is willing to pay...
I had a smile ..... :-)

Prices for unique pieces, like minerals, are in this category.
I read an article, many years ago, in MR, that making long short, said that with time, any mineral could be sold at any price (say not, a Navajun pirite going for 40.000 USD :-) )

Of course, then, there is the opportunities, information and so, and collectors, more or less informed, would be willing to pay a price ...or not.

With best wishes

Lluís

[Ray McDougall]

An “ARP” model could potentially be beneficial if it was possible, but given (1) the incredible subjectivity as between specimens (as discussed above and in the quality discussion), (2) potential market transparency issues that can always exist in any market, and (3) the fact that everyone in the mineral market has an interest in the outcome, it could be very difficult to establish a viable objective process for deriving ARPs. Assuming a process and ARPs, if the process was viewed by the market as fair and objective the market would by definition succeed, and if the process was perceived to be in any way flawed, the market would reflect that too, to the detriment of dealers and collectors alike. All of which strikes me as coming back around to free market pricing prevailing one way or another.

To me, the fact of arriving at a deal as between a buyer and a seller upon the sale of a specimen is truly not indicative of an “adversarial” relationship – a transaction/deal is simply a reflection that a collector and a dealer agree on a price. Rather than adversarial, these are collaborative relationships - dealers are integral to helping collectors and institutions build their collections and collectors and institutions are essential to dealers (not to mention collectors are sometimes dealers and vice versa), and all contribute to the science of mineralogy. The hobby, the science and the community of Mineral World depend on its friendships and the collegial and collaborative sharing of knowledge and exchange of ideas – all the antithesis of an adversarial environment.

R.

[keldjarn]

I know Jordi as a very dedicated and honest mineral dealer and fullly understand why he is attracted to an "ARP"-model for determining mineral prices. I do think experienced collectors and dealers in most cases can agree on an "estimated real price" for most minerals sold in todays market independent of the numbers on the price tag. These estimates will of course also reflect where the specimens are expected to be sold ( country, region, mineralshow, internet, auction etc.). For specimens that occur in large quantities with a relative narrow quality range, this is easy ( can be applied to most specimens of Vanadinites, Fluorites, Pyrites, Zeolites, Quartz, Amethysts, crystalized ore minerals from Bulgaria, Peru, China etc, etc). But it becomes much harder - or as I would state it: there would have to be a very large " range of uncertainty" applied to any price estimate - for those very few specimens of exceptional quality, crystal size and aesthetics also for these ordinary minerals. For exceptionally rare minerals and exceptional specimens of unusual minerals, it is also very hard to give a price estimate without a considerable "range of uncertainty".
Compared to other collectors`markets, the appraisal of mineral specimen values will allways be much more difficult than man-made objects like stamps, coins, dolls etc. where it is also possible to estimate the total number of objects in existance of many of the most desirable types. There can allways be a new strike of specimens of superior quality also at the classic localities and the risk of experiencing this would have to be reflected in any price estimate for minerals.
I remember many years ago price-guides for minerals which was used as an addition to the many prise lists issued by dealers as indications on market prices. But they were never accepted or used in the same way as catalogues for stamps, coins, dolls and many other kinds of collectibles. And they were never relevant for those very few one-of-a-kind specimens which changed hands in dealers`back roooms and by the purchases made by some of the major museums.
I think Jordi`s ARPs or my "Estimated real price with a range of uncertainty" could be used for 99 % ( or more) of the market ( in number of specimens or sales) and with specimens priced to a few hundred USD. But I do not think that would be relevant for the question raised about" questionable prices" in the very upper market segment. I believe in this segment any estimated price could be incorrect by a factor of 10 ! - This is also frequently observed at art and antiques auctions (or with stamps on letters with very collectible and rare post marks) where exceptional and unusual objects may remain unsold ( because even a low starting price was considered too high by the purchasers) - or the final price may be 10 times the original estimated value ! I think the interesting observation is the growth and increased competition in the high-end segment of the mineral market, and to what degree this is also happening in other countries than the US. I think only time will show if what we are witnessing is an emerging" international aesthetic specimen market" on the same level as art and antiques and if this market will grow to sustainable levels. I cannot see how it should have a negative effect on what most mineral collectors enjoy in the hobby. It will surely have as little to do with education and the science of mineralogy as the market of fine antiques is related to the studying and teaching of history or archeology.

[Carles Curto]

Yes, the ”international aesthetic specimen market" is an specific sector of sales (and minerals!) with particular criteria and characteristics. When John says: “Paul Desautels, always argued that minerals were undervalued and that they should be as desirable and expensive as fine art” (a nice story for a nice two persons) I’m absolutely agree, but I add: Paul Desautels had a very fine taste for minerals (and life), Washington and Houston can testify it and, in some sense, we can considere him as inventor of this idea that “keldjarn” beautifully expresses as ”international aesthetic specimen” (and, by extension the inventor of their market).
But most of the laments of advanced collectors are about simply good (and why not, nice) “scientific-esthetic” minerals. Its prices frequently look inoculate by those of the “top” specimens. In Munich last November I saw a really very poor Spanish Fluorite (is just one example but not the only one) priced 6000€. I suppose this Fluorite was not sold but, what to think about the dealer?

[Gail]

Everyone keeps labeling collectors here....Elite, scientific, and a slew of other names.
I collect ALL aspects of rocks and minerals in all price ranges, including self collected.
I refuse to be classified under ANY title that others wish to put upon me.

I am a mineral collector. I buy them. I crawl into mines and collect them. I go to places where tabletops are full of rocks and find my treasures there just as easily as the fine mineral booths set up at the Westward Look where I can get a chocolate with my purchase. ( Or two )

The point is that I see everyone segregating collectors into specific monetary or intelectual groups, but that is rather lame. No one is taking into account that there is a huge group of collectors who encompass ALL aspects of collecting! They can tell you the name of the mine, where it is located, who worked it and if it still open or not and the chemical makeup of that $50,000 rock they just bought.

I have seen a lot of anti-wealthy collector drivel on many sites, not so much on this one...but it is amazing how wealth is misconstrued as to mean dumb.
And the scientific community is not full of socially retarded people either...as is often suggested. People are just PEOPLE.

I respect anyone who has an interest in minerals, period. I don't give a darn if they collect million dollar rocks or if they only self collect...they are simply enjoying the same passion I enjoy.
Why wouldn't I value knowing them?

Viva la difference in the purchasing customer base, it is a guarantee that minerals will always be sought after and there is a market for all rocks and minerals that come out of the ground. Now what could be wrong with that may I ask?

[Gail]

Please excuse my misspelling of Intellectually in the previous post, I just woke up...