FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[parfaitelumiere]

hello!
Very interesting question!
Maybe the origin of the specimen will be important because of the history of the place it comes from.
It's the case for azurites from chessy,because this place is known for a long time,and some well known mineralogists,like haüy or bedant, have worked on azurite specimens from this place.
However you can find some wonderfull cristals from Morroco,USA,Namibia,and from some secret places in France,where there are beautifull cristals!
It is the same thing for me about pyromorphite from Ussel,or Bunker hill,or Daoping.
Something else is possible: How many specimens have been taken out from this place or another place.If a lot have been taken out,these specimens are common,and less expensive than some uncommon specimens.
However,common specimens are more often seen,and more often wanted,so more expensive?!

[Jordi Fabre]

Finally I have some time to answer the first questions of Tracy. To do it I would like to recover the list wrote by John initially and play with it a little bit.

The John's list was:

1. How would you rate this specimen on a scale of 1 to 10?
2. Have you seen better ones?
3. If so, how many?
4. How rare is this mineral?
5. Is the locality still producing?

This list includes a necessity: to use it, it could be necessary to have a long term experience on minerals in order to compare its vision on your "mental database", without it the points 2,3 and 4 of the John's list could be not useful for you because you have not the necessary information to proceed.

You still have the chance to use the points 1 and 5. The point 5 is pretty simple, to answer the question about if the locality is still producing you can use internet-books-magazines easily. So, it remains the point 1, you can afford it but the question is, how?. Do you have clues to rate specimens between 1 and 10 using basic knowledge and experience? well, it exist, or at least I think so. You can use the same clues that people use when they visit an Art Museum:
- this paint have a good colors balance?
- the size and shape of the different elements of the whole paint is equilibrated?
- it looks nice to me or ugly?
- I love it? (not I like it, I love it!)
- is something on this paint telling me that it is perfect on the sense that it feed my esthetic concepts?.
I'm going to a complicated territory because I'm suggesting that you can consider the quality of a mineral specimen following similar parameters to an human work (art) and minerals are not human, but the best that I can do considering the circumstances is to give you the tools that I used when being very young I visited Folch's collection. Then, without a real knowledge about minerals and mineralogy, I needed to use something to follow his powerful and well trained mind to be accepted as a disciple of him. I used the tools mentioned above and for some reason it seems that them worked.

Of course on a long term you would need a different vision, not so simple, but I think that as a starting it could work.

Jordi

[Tracy]

What fortuitous timing Jordi - I was just going to this thread to put up some new thoughts, and your comments fit in perfectly!

I've been meaning to resurrect this discussion for a few weeks, but only now have the time to do so...

I did not attend the Tuscon show, but a friend was kind enough to send me brochures and flyers to see all that I missed. One morning I came across the following while reading Richard (Rickk) Trapp's words of welcome to the "Minerals of the USA" exhibit:

"This is an exposition of the finest minerals from hundreds of sources...This event has been two years in the making. Mineral collectors have shouted and argued and pleaded and begged over what specimens should be included in the displays and the accompanying publication. Grown men and women, some of them quite used to getting their own way, have finally been forced to come to grips with that thorny question: who has the best minerals? Not just from a single location or of a single species, but who has the best minerals from the 50 best localities in the USA? Who has the bragging rights?"

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall and able to listen in on these discussions!

Somewhere along the way there was consensus that the minerals featured in the exhibit were in fact "the best of the USA." As I follow this thread along with the "2008 prices" debate, and now with Jordi's comments added and Mr. Trapp's writings, I get the sense that (with aopologies for distilling everyone's thoughts into a few sentences) judging quality is almost entirely a subjective process, and also that the only common denominators have to do with esthetics (itself a subjective thing). Which surprises me, because I would have expected that objective criteria (e.g., size, color, crystal habit, "rarity" - a nebulous term if ever there was one because minerals can be rare and/or unique in a whole host of ways - condition, and so forth) would have had a bigger say in deciding what is truly a quality specimen and what isn't. Then there is the added feature of having tastes evolve over time and with increased knowledge. So how did the highly expert members who selected the pieces for this great exhibit make their choices? Are there no truly objective criteria? (even condition is a fuzzy parameter, because the degree to which one cares about a ding is highly variable)

I could go on, but I have a flight to catch...

[Tracy]

- that should have said Rick Trapp, I typed without proofreading.

[Pete Modreski]

I'd wanted to make some comments earlier regarding this thread, and Jordi's and others' remarks made me think back to this. Looking at John's criteria that Jordi repeated, and hearkening back to some of the earlier posts about what determines quality and value,

1. How would you rate this specimen on a scale of 1 to 10?
2. Have you seen better ones?
3. If so, how many?
4. How rare is this mineral?
5. Is the locality still producing?

I wanted to make the comments, that some properties or characteristics of certain minerals and specimens are always going to make them more prized and valuable (dollar-wise as well as aesthetically) than others; such as, for example,

hard vs. soft
inert vs. water-soluble
sturdy vs. delicate and fragile
transparent vs. opaque
colored vs. black or white

So that for these reasons, in addition to the obvious qualities of crystal size, crystal perfection, rarity, etc., minerals like tourmaline, beryl, corundum, topaz (i.e., most of the gem minerals) are usually going to be more valuable than minerals like calcite, the borates, the zeolites, etc. And I think, delicate minerals like wulfenite for these reasons, are always going to be slightly less valuable than they otherwise would be.

Being "delicate" is a mixed blessing of course, as it contibutes to aesthetics, but necessitates very careful handling and storage to keep the specimen intact and undamaged. And, I'll admit, that a mineral like rhodochrosite is very highly regarded, in spite of being soft and fragile (dropping it would result in a multiplication in number of specimens!). But imagine if rhodochrosite had a hardness of 9 and no cleavage; then the large specimens from the Sweet Home mine would truly be worth "a king's ransom"!

Pete Modreski

[Tracy]

Pete - not meaning to be a trouble-maker here...I have heard it said that black/white mineral specimens are less desirable than colored minerals, but does this speak more to popularity than to quality? These two elements are often hard to tease apart from each other, but I would not regard them as interchangeable...? (in other words, aren't there plenty of high-quality ferberite and schorl and milky quartz specimens out there) With respect to "durability" and clarity, I can see where there might be more overlap, but not with color versus black and white (think photography for example).

Sorry if I missed something here...

[Konstantinos Ch.]

Hello all!

Wonderful topic! I love it!

This is my opinion :

Quality equals rarity.Not rarity of the mineral species, but rarity of the specimen. Now, what defines rarity of a specimen:

1- Aesthetics- Color, clarity, position of crystals, luster, displayability, form, combination of species, sharpness of crystals, shape of crystals , trim-work , overall appearance. A specimen that exhibits all or most of this characteristics is rarer than a specimen that doesn't, so it's of higher quality.

2- Locality - Some localities are famous because they produce the best representatives of some mineral species. The specimens of that very species from this locality are of higher quality. Some species rarely come out of a specific locality with specimen-grade crystals, so, although they are not the best representatives of the species, the specimens are considered to be of high quality. For example Azurite from Tsumeb is the best and it is considered to be of high quality. However, the Mexican ones are very fine for Mexico and are still considered of good quality. When a specimen of Mexican Azurite is equal to one from Tsumeb considering all the factors except locality, the first specimen is of higher rarity (and so quality...) than the second.

3- Condition -Very important ! Damage and contacts reduce the quality of a specimen. However, a collector has to consider other factors, too , like the delicacy of the species and comparison to similar specimens in existence- for example, as I always say, totally pristine specimens from Madan are VERY RARE, so I tolerate minor damages for my collection. Also, trim-work related to the condition like repairs reduce the quality.

4- Size of crystals- This counts the most for species that rarely come out in big crystals or rarely the larger crystals are aesthetic. For example, Shigaite, The bigger the crystal, the higher the quality.

5- Size of specimen- Since collectors started to specialize their collections at a specific size of specimens (thumbers, miniatures , small cabinets etc. ) we have to consider this factor, too. A Thumbnail of a Topaz should be judged as a thumbnail of a Topaz, not just as Topaz specimen. There may be several specimens of bigger size that are of higher aesthetics, but when at this size a specimen can't get better, then it's rarer.

6- Mineralogical importance- Rare crystal habits, well-defined crystal faces , symmetry in crystal form, crystal twinning, inclusions , skeletal or other special growth , natural etching and polishing, pseudomorphy, fluorescence, dichroism and in general all the mineralogical phenomena that occur rarely are factors that increase the quality, when a specimen exhibits any of them.

7-Mineral species- Of course, when a mineral species is rare, the specimen is rare. However, the grade of rarity of such a specimen depends on the number of similar pieces in existence. If we have a find of 200 similar pieces of a rare mineral and a single specimen of a common mineral with a unique habit for its species, the latter is much rarer specimen, independently the species of the 200 specimens is rarer in general.

8- Time of mining- Some specimens are also used as mineralogical antiques. An otherwise common specimen which has survived 100 years is rare first because it survived, and because it's a the only or one the few representatives of an old find. Those specimen have historical value.
On the other hand, a brand new find of material different than the older ones makes a specimen of this material potentially rare, since the collector can pick his own out of the lot and the find will be old soon.

9-Classic material- Some specimen of a specific find prove to be the best worldwide or from a specific locality. This makes the pieces of the find rarer than similar ones.This factor is actually a combination of other factors.

10-Size of the lot- When a lot of similar specimens comes in a small number of specimens the specimens get rarer.

11-Matrix- Some finds consist mostly of free-standing crystals and some other of matrix pieces. The proportion between matrix and non-matrix specimens at a given material defines the rarity of the two different types of specimens.

Now, the rarity of a specimen is always defined as a combination of all those factors. And here comes in the game the subjectivity John was talking about. A specimen almost never exhibits all those characteristics and it's up to the collector to chose for which of those factors absence to be tolerant. For example, I prefer my crystals to be gemmier and less sharp than sharp and less gemmy, if i have to chose between the two characteristics.

So between the two unique specimens of matrix Ruby of the same find, of the same size, with same sized crystals, both at perfect condition with intensive color and both with twinned crystals but one of them with clear more rounded crystals and the other sharply formed textbook but more opaque crystals, I'll pick the first one. Some other collector would pick the second. Here the rarity is the same and it's a matter of preferences.

Hope i helped!
-Kostas.

[jimB]

I agree with the notion that quality is a rarity factor. I have not heard many people express this so I enjoyed your observation, Konstantinos.

[cascaillou]

I agree that absence of damage is definately important for a quality specimen (and if any repairs have been done, these must be mentionned!).

A quality specimen also needs to be free of any treatments (no oils or resins, no polishing of the crystal facets, no heating, no irradiation...). Which is somewhat problematic as heating and irradiation are not always detectable, even with laboratory analysis.

In my mind, the only acceptable processings are:
-triming of the matrix
-elimination of carbonates/oxides crusts (by the use of acids or dithionite) so to reveal the embeded crystals
-cleaning the crystals from earth, dust and grease (using water, alcohol, acetone, soap)
-mechanical cleaning (as long as it doesn't involve any polishing nor carving)
-ultrasonic cleaning

[basti]

I think that this is far subjective and very difficult to tell. The first and most important thing is WHERE you buy. Generally western Europe, USA, Canada and Australie are several times more expensive then the rest of world. There are thousands of sellers and many overprice items up to X0.000%. This is just speculation and it has nothing to do with real quality.

If we strip speculative part of the price, then of course applies everything mentioned about physical properties, size, aesthetic quality, damage, treatment etc. Still one tricky thing survived - yes, it is locality. There are many people very sentimental about some localities, some are called "classic" and blahblah... If there are two localities, both totally depleted and both producing aprox. same quality specimens, but only one is known as "classic" - wonder which specimens will cost 100x more? But again this has nothing to do with quality.

I prefer to buy high (physical) quality specimens from anywhere but only cheap. This cuts off locality sentiment and speculative part of the price. Good aesthetic and undamaged specimen is easy to swap or sell anytime and during the years, ALL localities become depleted. If you buy some "classic" stuff you pay high premium for that classic label but there might be dozen of sites producing same or better quality 10x cheaper. If you are rich and specialized on some certain site then ok. For most general buyers-collectors I consider buying only classic pieces as quite bad investment.

[Pierre Joubert]

Very interesting contributions! In some respects rocks are like humans, very few are pretty and undamaged, most of us have nicks and dings! But, there are other aspects that can make both valuable. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

[Peter]

Thank you for many angles and insights. I also agree fully with the last note.

Many times I have heard collectors complain about a repaired specimen. I think all of us or our spouses, children or parents have some repair, tooth, broken leg, internal operation etc. Do we discard them for that?

Some of the most unusual, beautiful or rarest, finest specimens in the world are repaired.
The great Phosphophyllite, the Rocket rubellite from the Jonas Mine,
even the Akropolis and the Abu Simbel :)

Damage is all down to magnification really, same as in humans. I have some 35 specimens out of thousands in my collection which are repaired. I love them no less than any others and they constiute some of my very best as well.

Many years ago Wayne Thompson let a few dozen mineral museum curators and long term collectors vote for the best minerals on exhibit in the cases of Steve Smale, Bill Larson, Gene Meirean. The evaluation was cleverly done in the way you would put your 1st, 2nd and so on choice in each individual case as well as in all cases combined .

My priorities was entirely in line with the general consensus of those some 50+ evaluations, preferences, except in one case where I put one single crystal on a somewhat higher appreciation. The reason being that this particular specimen is truly exceptional for any locality, but perhaps the finest in the world from a classic rare one. but from this classic locality. I have visited in person and studied during many years, read all there is to read about it starting from the 1700s and on....so the interest and knowledge of a locality and the rarity of that quality from that locality of course influences our appreciation.

[crazy.stone]

Wow, this is a pretty good topic. Actually I am a newer and having the similar questions. I will read again and taste the ideas slowly. Many of the above ideas are very good ones, but I believe as the collections, there are random reasons same as other collections. If one like it, he would like to buy no matter where is explored, rare or not, what color it is.....
But if you have seen as much as minerals you can, you will get a clear judgement for the one you see now. Thanks guys, I am happy to see such different topics here.

[Jordi Fabre]

[Mark Ost]