FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Farlang]

Quick answer to the "minerals are art and art cannot be quantified".

Amazon, recommendations: "people who like... also like..".. this is still based on.. well it's kept a secret what it is based on, but basically it connects all information we have on a book or cd and gives me recommendations based on the behavior of other people. It works very well with books and music (in fact 50 % of Amazon's sales is generated this way). With movies Netflix is making inroads. Still many base their recommendations on existing algorithms that fall short in certain areas such as art and movies, whereas it works very well indeed with books and music. (lastfm dot com comes to mind).

With regards to images some interesting developments have taken place with lengthy titles such as: "Personalized art image retrieval based on learning user preferences for paintings". Microsoft + Siemens, 2003. What did it do: it gave you sets of paintings and you would have to choose which ones you liked. It would then serve you a "better set of paintings" etc. Instead of doing the above based on metadata: "I like van Gogh" so give me more van Gogh, or I like "impressionist" so give me more "impressionists", it would actually not look at the specific information of the object. It would simply collect the data of "tastes", "people" and "paintings" and apply very complex algorithms to connect those. It doesn't matter anymore how such a painting was described. It didn't look at that.

Now that's what you want: I may like one Monet, but not another, one documentary but not another by the same maker, or another about the same topic, but a different maker etc etc. If I say I like THIS "van Gogh" I don't want to get more "van Goghs" necessarily just because I say I like "van Gogh". I WOULD like to get more paintings I like.. without even being able to tell myself what "my taste" is like.

Results: out of each set of 20 paintings, people started out with 2-3 images they liked, and ended with about 10-15 images of paintings they really liked. A more modern variant (again with totally new, complex algorithms) is stylefeeder dot com. It lets you download a browser plug in, and it will connect your taste with that of someone else, somewhere in the world. Stumbleupon dot com is doing something like this but less focused on this particular problem (in my opinion).

So.. there are some projects going on where it's not about the "definition" of an object it simply is about "what do I like". In fact it's a problem many are all too eager to solve, and I would not be surprised if that is one of the directions social networks will evolve into: the aggregated taste, behavior etc. of millions of people. Naturally you would see all this first in big areas such as style, art, movies etc...but just replace "art I like" by "Minerals I find have similar aesthetics", look at prices, and you have at least one piece of the puzzle.

All I wanted to do was to give you a little bit of insight into how these things can work out. Obviously there's a long way to go, but.. don't be surprised, if one day... someone.. will knock on your door :-)

[Gail]

Just a sidenote,
I owned and operated an art gallery for 23 years, and before that I had worked for 6 others across the USA.
Seeing the tastes of the masses was pretty interesting. I struggled to get a client to buy an original painting for $2,000. The paintings were very beautiful and one of a kind. The clients wanted a limited edition Bev. Doolittle print for about the same amount of money, after framing, that they could have had an original for. The "limited editions" were numbered up to 69,000. I don't know about you, but limited to me means just that, limited, and 69,000 isn't very limited?!
I would ask why they would prefer a paper print over an original watercolour or oil, the answer was consistent. They wanted something that other people would recognize, something that showed they also had good taste, something that others would easily agree was collectable, and wise!
I would often be amazed that limited edition was the key word with folks, not ORIGINAL.
When you have an original, you have to know something about the artist and the history of his/her history. That actually scared many people off, they felt better about a print that others would know and they wouldn't have to deal with any stories and perhaps mess it up. I found most of this out over the 35 plus years I had in the business.
Most people seem to think there is a sure fired return of money plus a profit if they sold their limited edition prints as compared to the "risk" of an original piece of art.
( we are not talking van goghs here folks, we are talking local artists that were incredibly good at what they did. )
As an artist myself I found this a bit sad, as I value an original so much more than a limited edition anything, but I am not the norm.

I just wanted to lay a foundation for chat on questionable prices....
Gotta run, my eldest daughter gets married today! Woo hoo!

[Les Presmyk]

I think what we need now is for one of the folks who have been advocating for developing a pricing guide for minerals to step up and get the process started. I just opened up ebay and found over 15,000 mineral specimens (we can certainly argue what some people's notion of a mineral specimen is but that is another subject to discuss another time). In addition there are the numerous websites of dealers. Dan Weinrich lists over 1200 specimens and Rob Lavinsky has over 3000 specimens, all with sizes, descriptions, one or more photographs and prices. These are just two of more than 100 dealers currently with websites. How much more transparent do we need the market to become?

I just came back from Washington, D.C. and instead of going to the Natural History Museum, the folks I was with wanted to go to the National Portrait Gallery. As I stood in one of the rooms of modern art, I assumed that each painting had to be good since it was part of the Smithsonian collection. Other than that, I had no idea why it was there. There was a certain frustration because I recognized I knew nothing about what I was looking at. It would have been helpful to have a guide explaining the history and importance of each piece. Even with this limited group of paintings, no one had taken the time and expense to produce such a guide. Who is going to take on such an endeavor for the mineral hobby? I know the solution to my art quandary. Next time, I am taking Gail, although I know she was down looking at the mineral collection.

[Gail]

You know Les, if you buy me lunch I will willingly go to an art museum with you and explain why some paintings are fabulous and why others are crap, but then again...it is all about what turns you on. That, and that alone, should always be the bottom line on looking at art. But if you want to BUY art, well then....it might mean dinner and not lunch.

hee hee

[mmauthner]

Interesting what you said about art buyers, Gail. I have a small art collection and have always (whether paintings, sculptures, or photographs) preferred originals. One of my best friends extends that to minerals in the sense that he prefers to add pieces that are either self-collected or ones he has obtained from the person that collected them...he likes to know who the collector was. While I am not as rigorous as he is about that, knowing who brought a specimen out of the ground holds value for me as well.

Not sure how this fits "Questionable prices in Tucson", but I no longer have your email address Gail...I think the only time we emailed was when I was still in Houston.

Best wishes to your family on this special day!

Cheers,
Mark

[Les Presmyk]

As if I could have pried you away from the mineral collection at the Natural History Museum. I almost had them convinced to go until someone brought up the various galleries in the National Portrait Museum and then we were on our way. This is almost beginning to sound like an offer to see your etchings. Actually, I would like to capitalize on your knowledge sometime, not to buy but to just gain a greater appreciation of art. This will be much more fun than enrolling in some class. We have other things to discuss as well.

[Farlang]

Les,

Hmm... I think we should rise above the "well why don't you step up to the plate" argument. I think that's a bit too easy :-). The point was not who was going to make it "right here, right now", the point was: "is it possible" and how. Obviously it can be part of your argument that if noone wants to work on it, it's not possible.

You asked me to respond to your list of items one should take into consideration of each mineral, and I tried to point out what type of technologies are under development at present that sort of circumvent that problem by using a different and more lateral approach if you wish. I tried to give you the boundary conditions and a "reality check" with them, and I tried to explain the approaches and concepts that are being applied within these novel technologies. Obviously those are pretty complex algorithms, concepts and ideas and not all of them are ready for prime time yet, or too expensive still. (See how I add the words "yet" and "still" ?)

What may seem huge now, may not be so 10 years from now. Democratization of technologies goes at a phenomenal speed and creates a level playing field for many newcomers. As an example one can think of Amazon's recommendations "people who like.. also like" that could be bought 7 years ago for close to $1 million, where there is very decent software available at present for only $ 500. Imagine what I can do with that in markets that would never justify the $ 1 million investment ?

I think I gave a fairly realistic description, without starting a 10-page guide, on what technologies these days are and are not yet able to do, and in which direction they seem to go and I think I am pretty knowledgeable in the area. I hope it provided some insight, if not I'll be more than willing to answer further questions on the forum or in private. Whether you choose to believe me or not, or my arguments is entirely up to you :-).

Patrick

[GneissWare]

I think Les' point about all the mineral websites providing a "database" of prices is right. There are 100s of sites where you can get some sense of pricing. In fact, I often use these websites when trying to develop support for a mineral appraisal. So, in some sense the knowledge base is already out there.

Back on the topic of pricing, I have a few more observations.

What you also often notice is the large variability in pricing for similar minerals from the same locality. Some variability is a function of quality, some of aesthetics, and some of the amount of hallucigenetic substances in use during pricing ;=). But, the "database" does provide some sense of the current marketplace. It doesn't necessarily mean the prices are reasonable or affordable.

It has always made sense that when looking at the continuum of specimens, a small percentage will be of very high quality and aesthetics, and thus will command a much higher price--possibly many orders of magnitude above "good" quality specimens. In some ways, this is good for the hobby in that selling a specimen for a huge price provides the resources to go out and find more specimens. This is certainly the case for operations like Bryan's Sweet Home Mine, which cost lots of money to operate and produced a few spectacular pieces that were literally worth whatever the richest guy could pay. But, it also produced lots of good specimens, which may still have been too pricey at the lower end of quality.

The problem with prices in today's market is that "good" specimens, which say make up 20% of a find, are priced at much higher multiples than in the past, as compared to the great specimens. This price escalation then results in mediocre specimens, which used to be the "entry-level" specimens for beginning collectors, being priced too high.

When buying a lot of specimens, we used to take the "low-end" or average to mediocre specimens, which made up 50 to 60% of a lot, and try to sell them to cover the cost of the lot-- about a 2 times markup. All your profit was made on the upper 10 to 20% of the specimens, where you marked them at 3 to 5 times their cost, resulting in an average and reasonable profit (before expenses) of about 3 times the cost of the lot.

It seems that now days the goal is to price at whatever the market will bear (or maybe a bit above). How can one justify selling, for example, a Darwin California scheelite with 3 small crystals for $750 (as I saw in Tucson), when a year or so ago I was buying much, much better specimens for $75 to $100 from the same locality? Or, dealers buying a mineral from another dealer and marking it up 10 to 12 times and putting it out for sale the same day.

I am all for capitalism, but, the escalation in prices, particularly in the lower end specimens is bad for developing the hobby. If children (or children at heart!) can't buy good and attractive specimens for reasonable prices, then they will not develop an interest in the hobby. And, as we can see from all the old collections coming onto the market, the average mineral collector demographic is getting older. Without an infusion of fresh blood, the dealers will have less customers, and will one day see a collapse of the market, such as was seen 20 years ago in coin collecting, and 10 years ago in the antique market.

[Jordi Fabre]

Gneissware,

You did a great synthesis of all previous posts related of this topic. As I said on my previous posts and as you say too, the more important question could be protect new customers avoiding their feeling that this hobby could be, or:

- too expensive for they

- too "hallucigenetic" without realistic prices, giving to new people interested for this hobby the bad feeling that is too confusing for they.

The top is the top, but I think that is not good to put aside the bottom of the pyramid.

Jordi

[Gail]

- those selling and buying very expensive material at questionable prices
- normal people like me, who cannot afford those prices and cannot see why they are justified


You know,James wrote this in his original posting of this thread. How is it he gets to be normal, but anyone who can afford to buy more expensive items isn't? Darn..But then again, we aren't quite sure how poor James is so perhaps he means anyone who can afford more than a $50.00 mineral? I mean, it is all sort of in the wallet of the beholder, right ???
And no matter how much anyone can spend, there is always someone who can outspend them...so why sweat it? And why not be happy for everyone?

I often see that people blame those that can afford to buy the expensive priced minerals for their lack of ability to buy them, but given a chance to win the lottery I would imagine that everyone would join the ranks of "so called Elite" collectors. Let's be truthful here. If I won the lottery I would buy a lot more minerals !!!

I never fault Oprah for her money, nor her ability to spend it anything she wishes. And if she drives the cost of anything up, it is because she is not alone in her ability to spend. It has been the way of life since time began.

I don't expect anyone to apologize for buying expensive minerals, just like I don't expect it of anyone who buys inexpensive ones. As I keep saying, viva la difference.

Now if I could only afford that villa in the Greek isles....Darn that Onassis family! ha ha!

[Jordi Fabre]

Gail,

Im following your posts and I agree with most (if not all) of your comments. But I also agree Gneissware.

My impression is that the discussion is not if the behavior of wealthy people buying expensive minerals is correct or not. It would be a great disaster if they don't do it. We need the energy supplied by the "elite" and their request of the highest quality to grow up the mineral's quality standards.

Considering that maybe using website's prices and other tools we can have an "ARP" or approximate prices to discriminate realistic and not realistic prices, then the discussion could be if actually some of the expensive minerals have not realistic prices and the consequences that this fact could generate on the hobby.

People like you or the members of MAD, searching carefully on Museums, websites, magazines and mineral's shows, do an excellent job, no problems for you, but not everybody is so expert or have the time and the desire to learn that you and the members of MAD's group have, so they can lost the necessary knowledge about "ARP" prices.

I can't find nothing bad to buy an Onassis villa in Greek isles, but probably I could complain if for some mysterious reason its market price becomes multiplied by 10 just because it is so nice that it can't have a market price.

Hopefully it make sense.

Jordi

[Gail]

Yeah Jordi, you make sense!
Just teasing about the Villa on the Greek Isle...it is the Greek Isle I really want to own!
ha ha!

[Farlang]

Gail,

In fact there may be some island in polynesia that's still within your budget... :-)

Patrick

[Les Presmyk]

Patrick,

I believe everything you are telling us about the technologies available to make this happen. That is why I made the statement, now let someone do it. This is not a simple challenge but a pragmatic one. I have outlined how I would see the list of parameters to make this list all inclusive. That and the existing websites, shows and my network as the result of my years in the hobby are the tools I use to assess the market at any point in time. My frustration is that you and others are apparently aware of technology I can only dream about yet are not in a position to bring it to this hobby.

One of the true constants in this hobby is the battle about who holds the high moral ground, field collectors or silver pickers (those who buy). There is a great deal of joy and pride to being able to collect a specimen and I have been fortunate in that regard. But, not everyone can or wishes to do so. Then amongst the silver pickers, it is the on-going debate about prices always being too high. For some collectors, $50 is a lot of money, for others $5000 or even $50,000 is what they are comfortable spending. At this past Tucson Show, I purchased over 20 specimens for our collection ranging in price from a few $100's to a few $1,000's. I am just as happy with a tennantite(possibly tetrahedrite) on quartz from the Magma mine for $300 as I am a calcite on quartz on chrysocolla from the Old Dominion mine for 15 times that. Both are great additions to our Arizona collection. There are plenty of minerals out there for everyone. However, if you are looking for a 5cm Bisbee azurite rose with high luster for $100, you are going to be disappointed.

[Pleione]

As a new member of the forum I only just read this topic. As someone new to collecting I am one of those people that some of you have expressed fears may be scared away by the pricing problems you have been discussing. So perhaps my experiences will be of some interest. I have certainly been disappointed by my initial ventures into the mineral marketplace and “bewildered” would certainly describe one of my feelings. Some of my initial purchases were made with no knowledge or sense of the kind of issues that have been discussed here. So I felt much let down when having made some buys, I discovered what appeared to be very similar material being offered elsewhere for around one third of what I had paid. How could such apparently similar things vary so much? Had I been ripped off?

At I started thinking about it (and before I had read the very helpful discussion here) all kinds of possibilities went through my mind. Was the quality of the material genuinely similar? – after all, it can be quite difficult to tell from photos and descriptions on the web. Maybe the higher priced specimens really were significantly better in some way than the cheaper ones? Maybe there was a difference between markets in different countries? But the more I looked the less I could make any sense of it. I really felt very deflated, becoming convinced I had paid far more than I need have done.

Of course over time, I hope to build up my own sense of the market by comparing lots of vendors, visiting shows, reading relevant literature and so on. But this takes time and I felt that there should really be something better out there to help newbies. After all, many more experienced collectors have gone through that process and I’m sure would have valuable things to share about what they have learned. For example, some of you say you have developed for yourselves an idea of which dealers you would regard as having fair and reasonable prices and which are “known” for higher prices, perhaps adding extra zeros that others would not. Well I don’t yet “know” which dealers are which. Would any of you be willing to share your views and name names? If everyone on this forum would write in with a simple list of which dealers they have found reasonable and which ones they would say are highly priced that would be of immense help. I know these would just be personal opinions but it would at least be a starting point for someone like me. After all, the more who share these things the better - I would be more inclined towards trusting a dealer that 50 of you had in their “reasonable” list than I would that only one or two people had included. But if only one or two have shared such a list there is less to judge by. Of course you may feel wary of openly saying that such and such a dealer is rather expensive but it doesn’t have to be done in a way that could get you sued! You may describe some dealers for example as “here are some I would feel like haggling with”. I don’t think anyone could sue you for saying that! Or you don’t even have to do it on the forum – you could email me privately.

Other technology that has been discussed really would be helpful if developed. While I appreciate the problems discussed, I can’t imagine it beyond the wit of man to come up with some sort of guide to prices that would give a feel for the market at any one time. I think the main stumbling blocks are not technical but more mundane – who is going to have the time to do it and who is going to pay for it?

Gladly, despite my initial experiences I have not been put off collecting. But I feel embarrassed at being so easily misled by inflated prices and shall be much more wary and cautious about future purchases.