FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Peter]

Tracy!
You have hit a weak point of some dealers. One can simply refuse to buy a specimen ulness the true provenance is revealed at the time of buying. A few times I have been promised the provenance when "someone"has finished" their deals with X to secure their interests. Sadly, this promise is not always fulfilled.

[John S. White]

Tracy:

I firmly believe in recording the history of the ownership of a specimen if it has been documented but, as I wrote, this should be a private matter between the seller and the buyer. The world does not need to know this history. Yes, dealers can request that they not be mentioned in captions, but who can be expected to respect that request down the road? Also, this business of publishing an endless stream of former owners is a relatively new phenomenon and dealers just a couple of decades ago were not aware of the threat.

Peter raised an interesting point and that is that many of the former owners appear to be collectors, but they are actually low profile dealers. Having once sold a collection they have come to realize that having their name as part of the provenance enhances the marketibility of the specimens, so are now acquiring specimens for their "collections" only to have them pass through their hands so that they can get more for them when they sell them. I do not respect that form of dealing, and journals like MR help to perpetuate this unfortunate activity.

[Les Presmyk]

I have subsribed for the MR since its inception and watched, and enjoyed it, as it has changed through the years. These comments are not new. If someone wants to buy a full page ad to display one of their specimens, I am in favor of that. If a group of people want to pay to have photos taken and published, it now becomes part of the historic record as to what those collections looked like at that point in time. And, before we get to high and mighty, let us not overlook the value of some of the mineralogic and natural history books that are held in such high esteem today started their useful lives as catalogs for the sale of those respective collections.

As Peter Megaw observed, these supplements are not paid for by the subscribers so you can either enjoy them or throw them away if they offend you too much. There is no question these issues stroke egos and somehow help sell specimens. So what. They are providing us with the opportunity to see specimens we would never get to see, even if they all belonged to museums.

[Jim]

To the casual reader the recent comments could come across as if the practice of "publishing an endless stream of former owners" is sort of an uncontrolled and pervasive epidemic in the journals.
I agree that the practice is rampant in dealer descriptions, but how many issues of, say the MR, exhibit it? When I look at photographs in recent issues, I see that credit is given to the photographer and sometimes the current owner (private or dealer), but I do not see photo after photo (in regular articles or show reports) with lists of former owners. The same is true in my experience with Rocks & Minerals and Rock & Gem. Now, some supplements contain this type of information -- like the beautiful IKONS supplement, but the intro to the IKONS supplement actually cautioned collectors about putting too much stock in things like "provenance" (be it a famous collection or a specimen has been published).

The Texas Collectors supplement also lists previous owners in some captions, but this was the independent choice of the contributors -- it was not editorial policy. The Texas supplement showcased some highly seasoned and well respected collectors, who apparently thought that such historical info added to the presentation. And these are some people who are not dealers.

Personally, I find collector provenance interesting so I am not offended by listing previous owners if space allows and it adds an historical or human interest dimension to the presentation. I should note that even an article about John White's collection in the MR (May-June, 2009) follows this basic idea. In particular, Figure 4 (p. 217) says that a lovely spinel crystal was a gift to John from Helmut Bruckner. Maybe John did not sanction that comment (article was authored by Tom Moore), but it was a nice touch even though it did not inform readers anything about geology or locality.

Abuse, such as noted by John White, does certainly happen! But playing Devil's Advocate, I fail to see the "epidemic" outside of dealer's writings.

Cheers,

[John S. White]

Hopefully this will be my final comment on this issue. Les has misunderstood the focus of my complaint. I was not referring to the special issues. Those who pay for these have the right to put in them whatever they want. However, I would prefer not to see attribution beyond current ownership in the captions of regular issues, be it MR, Rocks & Minerals, Rock & Gem or Mineral Up! If I were editor I would not do it. On the other hand, if the editor thinks it appropriate, why is it not done consistently instead of being a sometimes thing?

[Ed Huskinson]

Welcome home John, I hope that Munich was all that it could be for you. As to the MR thing, I'm not exactly ambivalent about this trend (or whatever you'd call it). I view it as a reflection of the ever-changing progression of mineral collecting. At first, the MR covered almost every aspect of mineral collecting. Wendell had his column on how to photograph minerals, Neal Yedlin covered thumbnails from top to bottom ("Buy and use a good mineral book"), it was all there. It was all good. They even covered pricing. Remember how they'd have 10 or 12 minerals, and everyone would guess what they were selling for? I think they covered it twice (about 10 years apart), using the same specimens both times. Howls of outrage at what the pieces were going for. Now, however, those prices would probably seem reasonable, eh?

And then the subset of label collecting came to the fore. It became a challenge to come into possession of the label for a specimen that had resided in the collection of a noted mineral collector (or even dealer). That's because the dealer could make two sales. First, the rock to the buyer, and second, the label to a label collector. I remember buying a smithsonite after cerussite from Tsumeb sold to me as being from the collection of Lazard Cahn. It came with just the dealer's label. I bought the specimen because I like it - still do. But I wanted the Cahn label because it (the label) is part of the history of the specimen. Regardless of provenance, I like(d) the rock. But still, the history of the specimen enhances the piece, makes it more interesting, so I'd like to have the complete story. I'm still trying to get ahold of the Cahn label, but...

Aleta has a Sweetwater Mine calcite specimen in her collection (I married a mineral-collecting belly-dancer). The calcite is unremarkable in aspect, but for the fact that it is from the John Sinkankas collection. She had used Sinkankas' book when she took her mineralogy course, and when she came across the specimen at Tucson one year, she jumped at the opportunity to acquire something from his collection. The calcite holds no interest for me personally (it is what Les refers to as being "aesthetically-challenged"), but hey, to each his own, eh? She likes it, and that's all that matters.

So. Labels themselves became commercially viable commodities, thus making it more and more difficult to acquire with their repective specimens. And the MR had covered most of the basics of mineral collecting, and as the collectors' interests became more and more focused on rocks of better quality, the MR grew to reflect those interests. I like looking at the spectacular things, and have a real appreciation for them. American Mineral Treasures: holy cow, will there ever be another show like that one??!!! And the Icon (Ikon?) book. Laugh we may, but those are some spectacular rocks.

So, I'm just standing on the sideline, watching the game unfold. I can do nothing about the sky-rocketing price structures, other than laugh at the descriptions of the specimens as the vendors struggle to legitimize the price through elaborate (and often conjectural) verbiage. Hey, it's all part of the game. In the end, each specimen will stand on it's own merits. The provenance of the piece is important, of course, and naturally adds value, But whether that provenance should add to a specimen's value to a substantial degree, well, I'm inclined to agree with you John. Pior ownership is part of the history of the specimen, but whether that fact should add to the monetary value of the specimen by a factor of 10? I think not.

OK, enough curmudgeonry. I have many hundreds of feet of HQ drill core to saw, log, and submit for assay, and must return to the task at hand. At least I'm no longer sitting out in the desert next to a screaming drill rig, gracias a Dios.

More later,

Ed

[Jim]

Again, I fail to see this "prior collector listing" as a big problem. Where is the epidemic? I look at the issues and do not see such lists.

And sometimes photo captions in regular articles do not contain info on current ownership, even though this is standard. So, if this is considered appropriate why is it not always done? One answer is that sometimes collectors want to remain private and sometimes we do not know the current ownership. The same would be true or prior provenance. Sometimes the type of article or photo lends itself to mentioning such information. Sometimes not. That is why I argued in my last post that space willing and context relevant, I have no issue with such information being listed.

I think the real objection is not to the practice itself, but rather to the abuse of the practice by collectors/dealers who want to add to the value of specimens for later sales. That is a separate issue, in my view. All collectors, regardless of field, should educate themselves on what makes a quality specimen. If someone is swayed by provenance and is willing to pay more for it, so be it. If the collector insists on high quality, regardless of provenance, so be it. The literature I have seen that educates people on collecting (e.g., IKONS, Rock Currier's MR articles) consistently de-emphasize prior provenance as the major selling point in selecting specimens.

So again, I do not understand what the firestorm is all about. To me, knowledge is power so the more info the better in my collection. Listing previous owners hardly detracts from scholarship.

Cheers,

[Jason]

That texas collectors issue was sweet..nice to see some of the specimens that normally would be locked away or kept from us with eager eyes:)..sweet stuff

[bugrock]

Hello,

I am pleased the MR thread has lead to discussion of a number of issues.

Recent messages have taken off on the thread of ownership of specimens. Would like
to prompt another thread.

The comment has been made, several times, that the special issues and the single page pictorials
are payed for by the collectors. That's fine to a point, but after all MR is an edited publication. I'm sure they
would not pass a poor photograph no mater who payed for it. So why not also insist that at least a
little background information accompany the images?

If you display a well formed xl or an unusual mineral from location Y, tell the readers why such a
piece from that location is unusual . A brief paragraph would do. A page would be better. Even a
footnote or a fine print appendix on the back pages with a few citations might be welcome.

Yes, there are many resources, online and otherwise. I have been collecting a number of books on mineral
locations and acquiring old issues of journals. But many of us specialize and I think pubs such as the MR are an
opportunity to expand knowledge. Also, not all readers have comprehensive libraries. Some of us are recent
converts to the hobby.

In my view the editors of MR could be more creative with regard to the collector issues. They could for instance
feature a mineral, mineral group, or location and ask for images from the better collections, private or otherwise and
solicit financial support for the pub of the color images. Perhaps this does not offer the collectors the opportunity to
feature all of their prized pieces but it might allow for a more expanded suite of mineral Z images etc. Perhaps the
editors are afraid to somehow short circuit the dreams of private collectors who what to display their exemplary
pieces. If that's true its time the editors work up their courage make more effort to diplomatically take more control
of their publication.

Thanks for you patience,

George

[Greg Toomey]

I'm jumping on this thread late, but what I have to say I believe is very important. MR, and all of the other publications mentioned in the previous posts, are still publishing, and that is reason in itself to celebrate. The fact that these publications (especially ones that have lasted over 20 years) are still successful is that they are not afraid to change their content. Maybe some of the suggestions (most are very good ones) will be used by one or some of them in the future. Integrity is great, but it matters little (except wistful thinking) if the subject of the discussion is a defunct entity.

Personally, I wish that the current subject matter of collections, collectors and people were more prevalant when I first started collecting in the early seventies - I may never have left the hobby for 20 years. I didn't have the time nor the means to travel to various shows and museums. Unfortunately, years ago, most all of the articles that focused on collections or people tended to be either a tedious exercise in academic protocol or a misguided attempt at humor that did little to encourage me to continue evolving as a collector.

I hope to continue to enjoy these publications (I subscribe to all of them) for many years to come - often complaining, but being continually surprised with each new issue.

Greg

[keith]

HI

I guess I must have made a a slight error in my original post.
I had intended it to be a comment on the "lack of mineralogy" today topic initially started by John.

Oh well

It has at least started a little debate.

I love the Min Record, just would like to see more Mineralogy encouraged.

Cheers

[Duncan Miller]

Does anyone else find offensive the advertisement in the November-December 2009 issue of The Mineralogical Record offering for sale a mummified Egyptian human head? This is an ad for the forthcoming Heritage Natural History Auction, on page 526. In my opinion this is approaching the high end of gross. It has nothing to do with mineralogy (but everything to do with advertising revenue) and is completely out of place in the Mineralogical Record. It represents trade in human body parts, which in most civilized countries is deemed offensive if not criminal, encourages looting of antiquities, and is highly insensitive to many non-western sensibilities. Would the Mineralogical Record run an ad for the sale of a mummified native American head I wonder? Why didn't they use a photograph of the beautiful blue-cap tourmaline for sale on the same auction, instead of going for shock value?


(Dr) Duncan Miller
Honorary Research Associate
University of Cape Town
South Africa

[John Cesar]

Dr. Miller:

I found the ad inappropriate.

John

[Jesse Fisher]

I recently sent an e-mail to the MR expressing my concerns about the ad (similar to Dr Miller's). I received a reply from the editor, Wendell Wilson, to the effect that he felt that accepting the ad had been a mistake on their part and that they would not be running anything of the sort again.

[zanthal]