View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
David
Joined: 01 Nov 2011
Posts: 101
Location: Bucharest
|
Posted: Nov 05, 2022 19:48 Post subject: Re: Money talks, especially in the hobby of mineral collecting |
|
|
Hello, Riccardo,
I think we should definitely include gemstones in the potentially affordable minerals category. And those can make for great specimens, even if they are nowhere near jewellery-grade. I find it very interesting to see gemstones in their natural, uncut or unpolished form or in their host rock.
I also think that the borderline between what constitutes a precious stone and what does not is extremely thin. In the end precious is a matter of perception.
Regards,
David |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tobi
Site Admin
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Posts: 4112
Location: Germany
|
Posted: Nov 07, 2022 07:43 Post subject: Re: Money talks, especially in the hobby of mineral collecting |
|
|
Philippe Durand wrote: | I think and experience has shown that it is possible to have nice specimens at 200$ and under.
1. for that do not look at gem minerals.
2. you can easily find small cabinet, miniature, and thumbnails in that range.
3. you can accept small damage or imperfections at the periphery of the specimen (nice does not necessarily mean perfect).
4. you can aim at common species: calcite, quartz, barite, pyrite, galena, sphalerite, fluorite (not the bests in this time, I must admit), malachite, schorl, garnets, zeolites....
5. take your time and see as many specimens as possible, and you will find sleepers (underpriced specimens) in the dealer stocks.
6. some dealers do regular sales, and you can have good opportunities
7. avoid the top-notch dealers who have overpriced specimens even for a very basic specimen, but a long list of words to explain why this usual calcite must be worth $500.
8. with time and age, you could save money to buy more expensive minerals.
9. buy what YOU like, and makes YOU happy: it is your collection
10. if you self-collect, it is the best, and free :) |
Philippe, except for the first sentence I agree with all of them! Words of wisdom!
Best regards
Tobi |
|
Back to top |
|
|
silvia
Joined: 10 Oct 2021
Posts: 253
Location: UK
|
Posted: Nov 07, 2022 17:57 Post subject: Re: Money talks, especially in the hobby of mineral collecting |
|
|
Tobi wrote: | Philippe Durand wrote: | I think and experience has shown that it is possible to have nice specimens at 200$ and under.
1. for that do not look at gem minerals.
2. you can easily find small cabinet, miniature, and thumbnails in that range.
3. you can accept small damage or imperfections at the periphery of the specimen (nice does not necessarily mean perfect).
4. you can aim at common species: calcite, quartz, barite, pyrite, galena, sphalerite, fluorite (not the bests in this time, I must admit), malachite, schorl, garnets, zeolites....
5. take your time and see as many specimens as possible, and you will find sleepers (underpriced specimens) in the dealer stocks.
6. some dealers do regular sales, and you can have good opportunities
7. avoid the top-notch dealers who have overpriced specimens even for a very basic specimen, but a long list of words to explain why this usual calcite must be worth $500.
8. with time and age, you could save money to buy more expensive minerals.
9. buy what YOU like, and makes YOU happy: it is your collection
10. if you self-collect, it is the best, and free :) |
Philippe, except for the first sentence I agree with all of them! Words of wisdom!
Best regards
Tobi |
Hello Tobi:
I would agree with you to a point. My partner and I do not collect many gem minerals. We have a few Pakistani Aquamarines in our collection that were obtained nearly 20 years ago, but little else. We just do not see any gem mineral specimens that we would consider worthy of purchasing in the small cabinet (8 cm x 8 cm x 8 cm) to large cabinet (15 cm x 15 cm x 15 cm) price range.
The vast majority of gem minerals in that size range are just too badly flawed to be worth the money being asked. Yes many possess vibrant blue and vibrant green and vibrant red crystals, but the crystals show far too many defects. This fact alone might explain why they are being sold as a mineral specimen rather than being cut as a gem. When you look closely you see many internal defects – cracks, veils, inclusions, milky zones, scratches and many other eye distracting characteristics too.
Some gem minerals resemble beautifully colour glass that has been heated and then cooled rapidly to create a mosaic of cracks and other internal defects. This is especially true of Tourmaline specimens which tend to show the most eye distracting features. Once you look beyond the vibrant colour the defects truly stand out.
We do like Schorl, as any internal defects are just not visible. When we do see a truly damage free gem mineral it is far too expensive to buy, exceeding our upper budget of $10,000USD by a few extra zeros.
We apply the same purchase principles to Quartz, Calcite, Fluorite and a few other minerals that occur as so-called ‘gemmy mineral’ specimens. Again, the internal defects are just too distracting in most cases, to warrant any serious purchase.
Silvia
PS – Stick with Sulphides, Arsenides, Sulphosalts, Oxides, better bang for the buck. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
James Catmur
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 1350
Location: Cambridge
|
Posted: Nov 08, 2022 07:33 Post subject: Re: Money talks, especially in the hobby of mineral collecting |
|
|
I will always prefer 10) as they are the best psychologically, if not physically |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Roger Warin
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 1178
|
Posted: Nov 08, 2022 13:49 Post subject: Re: Money talks, especially in the hobby of mineral collecting |
|
|
Hello,
For me, the morphology of the crystal is important.
One may prefer the unusual facets of an opaque crystal to transparency.
For this, small crystals are superior to larger ones. It is a question of crystallization kinetics.
Important faces are those whose growth was slow. The fast-growing ones often disappear, eventually being engulfed by the larger, more thermodynamically stable ones.
The collection of minicrystals can therefore be interesting.
Despite its great qualities, the emerald is only a beryl, inferior to sapphire and ruby.
Even the spinel must be respected.
These 3 gems are oxides, therefore compact materials.
But this is only a chemist's opinion.
Also, these 3 species existed in the solar nebula before the planets appeared. They are part of the CAI's, these refractory dusts. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|