FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Jordi Fabre]

I read with great pleasure the latest issue of the Mineralogical Record magazine, concerning the Private Mineral Collections of Texas.

Two thoughts came to my mind. First though was: what great idea! For a moderate price, considering the number of people supporting this special issue, you can show your favorite mineral specimens to everybody.

The problem was in my second thought, as it created a lot of doubts in my mind. Looking at the magazine, I have no doubt that all those wonderful specimens are great, but I have a strange feeling, like a kind of "deja vu". I mean, after looking at them only a few really appealed to me: the Melonite after Calaverite, the Francevillite, the Boleite on Anglesite, both Proustites from Chañarcillo and Niederschlema, the Catapleiite from St. Hilaire, and not too many more. Although, again, I recognize that all of them are superb specimens, the funny thing is that I know that there are other specimens in the collections that I would find far more interesting, but for some reason they were not selected.

What happened? Are we succumbing to the desires of publishers-photographers, so things need to always be colorful: Calcites, Pyromorphites, Fluorites, Elbaites, Beryl, etcetera...?
Is the beauty of mineralogy limited to these "icons" and not the more mineralogical beauties?
Am I crazy as I like rare, not so aesthetic specimens? Doctor could you help me? or, maybe some other members and readers of this forum have the same kind of illness? ;-)

I would like a lot to hear your opinions...

Jordi

[Gail]

I am in Washington, D. C. at the moment, we are off to the Smithsonian today to see both beautiful minerals and some not so beautiful minerals. They are actually all beautiful minerals to me.
The museum has beautiful minerals to draw people in, and then they get to see those that are more interesting for their scientific splendor, as I see it anyhow.
We have a few pages in the Texas supplement..we had just so many pages and allowances for space, so we all chose pieces that we LOVE. It wasn't about much more than that. There was no conspiracy to devalue minerals that were, perhaps, perceived as less than beautiful.
It was a way to show our pride in our collections and our passion. I will never deride anyone for having pride in their minerals, in fact...I encourage it.
We certainly teach our children to have pride in their rocks and minerals, why not follow up with that joy as an adult?
The minerals in our home are a great mixture of everything from black blobs that we adore, to sparkly glitter....all appreciated and loved. How can anyone know what people have when you only show a dozen or so photos from much larger collections?
We chose things that both Jim and I agreed on...pieces we really enjoy spending time with and enjoy. It was about his world and mine....he is very scientific and I am very artistic. ( I did own an art gallery for 23 years after all, and it was my world to enjoy colour and form and beauty ).
Jim will spend three days looking at a specimen under a microscope and noting all aspects and noting them in a catalogue. He will read the chemical make up, the mine information and the provenance of a piece and make sure that is noted too.
We both cross over into each other's preferred way of approaching a mineral, and we learn from each other what it is that makes us drawn to a piece.
Do not despair as those that are from one world need not feel limited, you can cross over into the other world and still live to talk about it.
After all, sharing minerals and talking about ALL aspects of them is both educational and beautiful to the eye, is it not?
We should all appreciate each other and be thankful for the camaraderie and help that we can all give each other. Viva la Difference!
From snowy Washington, D.C. Gail

[Cesar M. Salvan]

I think, despite the risk of to give a simplistic response, that the key question is how deep is the knowledge in the field.
Like a baby, a person with a shallow knowledge on the mineralogy fiel just found interesting those specimens with strong aesthetic, with colorful and big crystals beautifully shaped. This appreciation limit the interest in a few species and specimens.

Jordi, as many other "connoisseurs", both in the scientific field or the amateur field, could find beautiful and attractive many specimens, regardless the aesthetic, color, size, crystal shape. Knowing is loving, and as more deeper is your knowledge, more intense is your love, attraction and interest in certain specimens, despite of how other people perceive these specimens.
So, for example, I found that micromounters usually are experts in minerals and mineralogy. And when you deal with minerals from a professional point of view (as Jordi, or as a scientist) your love for minerals is extended even to the modest (from aesthetics point of view) clays. The beauty lie in the depth of our peception and knowledge. For me, all minerals are plenty of beauty.

[Jim]

Hi all,

I don't see any mandatory paradox between aesthetic and scientific. For example, "perfect" gem crystals are inherently aesthetic to most people (mineralogically informed or not), yet they represent geological "miracles" -- they are the exception, not the rule. It's amazing they exist at all when you truly consider all the variables influencing their formation.

As a psychologist, I don't shun the fact there's a strong emotional component to mineral collecting. That emotion can derive from sentimentality of a trip or in reaction to the properties of minerals that grab the artistic side in us (color, luster, etc.). Human beings are first and foremost visual creatures and minerals are typically first and foremost visual artifacts. To me, the science only reinforces the visual appeal of a specimen -- it's not at odds with it.

Finally, I too had a section in the Texas Collections supplement. I showed some common species (e.g., beryl) as well as more rare ones (e.g., euclase). However, even the common species had something scientifically important about them -- be it unusual crystal habit, locality, etc. Those scientifically-oriented features actually added more visual interest and aesthetics to the specimens in my opinion.

From a broader view, the entire supplement showed many examples of fluorite, rhodochrosite, etc. but they were hardly carbon copies. There were nuances to seemingly similar specimens given the pocket or locality from which they originated -- so they had great beauty as well as interesting diversity if you closely study them and have the scientific knowledge to recognize them in the first place.

Cheers,

Jim

[Tracy]

I agree completely with Cesar. Fluorites are (among) the most popular minerals to collect because of the diversity of form and color. If a person is starting a collection with no expertise, they will be drawn to interesting shapes and colors. As tastes start to evolve, a person might become more interested in other aspects such as locality, mineralogy, crystallography, and shift the focus to "uglier" minerals...it's a function of where on the growing curve we are.

That being said, it's possible that it is because collecting in general has become a much more prevalent thing to do. While riding the economic boom of the '90's there was a lot more disposable income, so people started using it to collect stuff. The growing attraction that Jordi is observing to beautiful minerals is a function of a lot more people choosing minerals as a fun hobby for collecting, often with little interest beyond esthetics. I don't think that the core group of scientists and people interested in localities and mines etc has changed all that much, just that it appears "diluted" by the new breed of collectors. It will be interesting to see what happens not during the economic slump, whether the focus becomes less on esthetics again.

It also seems to me that suddenly there are a LOT of older collections becoming available, so people have more access to esthetic specimens. Whereas beautiful collections ended up in musuems or privately sold, suddenly they are available on the Internet or at shows. I could be way off base with this observation, though, I am relatively new to the minerals world...?

Last thought: the growing popularity of online buying means that people searching broadly for minerals are being attracted more to what looks esthetic to them on a computer screen. So there could be a subtle shift in buying styles and preferences brought about by the rise of the Internet age.

Jordi commented to me at Tucson that there never used to be such a heavy emphasis on perfection in mineral specimens as there is today. And yet, the more people see that "perfection" exists, the more they will try to get hold of some for themselves. And this would be more likely among collectors who don't want to get deeply involved in minerals, but instead are happy to "skin the surface" when building their collection.

Written in extreme haste, hope it makes sense...

- Tracy

[MaryFender]

Tracy: Excellent points. The dark side to the new emphasis on perfection is the growing acceptability of mineral "renovation". The more demand there is for perfection the more people exist who are willing to renovate to comply with the demand. The standards of "renovation" have been stretched too far in my opinion. The moral is: be careful what you wish for.

Cesar: You make excellent points, I hope the new collectors can grow into the hobby.

[Les Presmyk]

The issue of perfection is something that has occurred in other hobbies such as coin and stamp collecting. In my youth, i remember collecting coins and the grading was fairly simple, good, fine, very fine, almost uncirculated, uncirculated and proof (considered perfection). Now, just in the proof category, there are apparently ten levels of perfection as there are grades from proof-60 through proof 70. Of course, as one goes through each grade, there is a corresponding increase in price. Then, you have various dealers and experts trying to establish whether a coin is proof-64 or proof 66.

I think some of this concern for perfection has spilled over into minerals. I will be the first to admit I strive to acquire the best specimen I can but a number of my specimens are far from perfect. As a collector specializing in Arizona minerals, sometimes the best available specimen is repaired or less than perfect.

Regarding the on-going discussion (hand-wringing by some) about mineraolgy versus aesthetics, I say let people collect what they want and at whatever level they choose to collect. I appreciate people like John White and Pete Modreski who are mineralogists and are willing to help educate those of us who spent our lifetimes as collectors but have followed another professional pursuit like mining. At the same time, everyone who enters our hobby should be helped to know that black and white minerals can be every bit as interesting as their more colorful cousins.

I have heard a dealer proclaim that the worst mineral investment today is black minerals. That certainly follows with Jordi's initial comments. For what it is worth, I am just as excited about seeing a great hessite or bournonite as I am a great azurite or wulfenite.

What I took away from the Texas issue is how many of the collectors have started their collecting in the past ten years, rather than whether they were collecting black or more mineralogically oriented minerals, whatever that means.

For those of us who saw the Lindsay Greenbank collection at the Tucson Show, the case was full of fluorites, calcites, pyromorphites and bournonites from England. Today, we stand in front of a case like this and view them with awe for the classics they have become. Now that China is producing those same minerals and Bisbee style azurites, we do not realize that history is repeating itself and the collectors today have the opportunity to help preserve those specimens for the future.

Finally, I think it is part of our responsibility to help educate the newer collectors on the wide breadth of minerals. People collect what is available. How can you get someone excited about collecting minerals that rarely make it to the market?

By the way Jordi, you violated one of your own rules. How big is that marvelous hessite?

[Les Presmyk]

One last question to spur the discussion further. At the top of this page are two colorful minerals, not black or white. Throughout history, we have always been attracted to that which is colorful first.

[Jordi Fabre]

Les,

The Hessite size is: 4.8 × 1.5 × 0.7 cm, main crystal size: 1 × 0.2 cm. The specimen is actually in Dr. Erika Pohl-Ströher collection, and you can find more details about it here: https://www.fabreminerals.com/search_show.php?SECTION=SHQ&CODE=EG27D1

In fact I violated more than one of my own rules, on that page where the Hessite is described, you will also find a Paraíba cuprian Elbaite that in fact is in my list of "common" minerals, as well as the two colorful minerals on the top of this Forum as you point out so well. I feel guilty! ;-)

Seriously, I think that the discussion is a little bit diverted of my original thought. My feeling, as I try to explain in my text, is more related with the tyranny of the colorful images in the medias (yes Tracy, Internet is in part responsible of this) not by the owners of the collections. As I wrote: "..the funny thing is that I know that there are other specimens in the collections that I would find far more interesting, but for some reason they were not selected..."

Jordi

[Les Presmyk]

The same thing happens with the specimens that get selected to compete for the Lidstrom trophy at the Tucson Show. For those who may not be familiar with the rules of this trophy, it is awarded to the best specimen selected by the exhibitor and contained within a competitive case. The key is that the specimen is selected by the exhibitor. There have been a number of occasions when another specimen would have won the trophy if the exhibitor had selected that specimen. That is why we require the exhibitor to select the specimen rather than the judges making that determination.

It is all about personal taste and I, too, know some of the Texas collections and am curious why specimens were selected and those that were left out. On the other hand, there was a Bisbee azurite that I was both pleased and surprised to see. It is not the best Bishee azurite that exists but it is one the collector is obviously pleased with and wanted to show off.

[Pete Modreski]

It was a good question and a valid topic that you posed for us, Jordi, and I think everyone has contributed good perspectives on this.

As people have noted, there certainly is room for all the different aspects and directions of appreciation of minerals, ranging from those who are focused on the beautiful and colorful and spectacular, to the rare and unusual and not necessarily photogenic or even particularly aesthetic, and I think that each contributes in its own way to the advancement of mineral collecting, study, and preservation, and to individual people's development of knowledge and appreciation of minerals.

When the MR Texas Collectors supplement first came out, there was quite a discussion about it on a "Rockhounds" listserv that I subscribe to (and which is much more, shall I say, a "homespun" and less sophisticated group of people that on this Forum). It began with one or more people expressing disapproval or disinterest in that issue--"it's just a bunch of similar-looking pretty specimens, why don't they do an issue on a theme about rare minerals or minerals from a particular region (e.g., Texas) and not just pretty ones". Perhaps there's been similar discussion on the Mindat forum (I must admit, I don't read it as thoroughly or often as I should). Of course, the counterpoint expressed has been, that Min. Record certainly has in the past done regular theme issues focused on countries, districts, mines or localities, and if any group of collectors had the energy and resources to assemble a good collection of well-written articles with good photographs about any specific locality or group of localities of significant mineralogical interest, whether or not the specimens were highly photogenic and aesthetic, I'm sure that MR would be willing to similarly publish a special issue about it. (Well--within reason, as to the "photogenic" quality of the material--but, as with the Texas supplement, if a group were willing to subsidize the cost of the issue, I'm sure MR would support doing it, regardless of the aesthetic virtues, or lack of them, in the specimens.)

Now of course, having said that, if some group really proposed assembling such a theme issue, on a topic quite lacking in aesthetic and beautifully crystallized showcase specimens--say, "A retrospective on the minerals of Langban"--that would really put MR to the test, of whether they would REALLY be willing to publish such an issue!

I'll close this note, with continued appreciation for everyone's contributions to minerals, whether in buying, selling, field collecting, curating, writing about, photographing, displaying, discussing, or posting pictures of them on the internet and in this Forum,

Pete Modreski

[TheBrickPrinter]

I am not perhaps in the league with many of the collectors represented here, but I have had a lifetime interest in mineral collecting. It began with a science fair project in the 6th grade and kind of contiunued through highschool , college and into pre-retirement with a few years of dark ages. I remember eagerly awaiting the new issue of Rocks and Minerals and the monthly "silver plated" catalog of Schortmanns minerals with actual pictures in it from somewhere up North in Mass. And a company named Minerals Unlimited who sent out typed lists of every species ever. Had to figure out best use of my $5.00 allowance. Lord wish I had that Tsumed azurite that I paid $5.00 for or that adamite paid a monstrous $2.00.

There is one thing that I think that is pretty unique to mineral collecting over all other types of collecting. It is a true blend of art and science. The aesthetics of color and form and balance for the artistic sensibility and the hard science of the chemistry and physics that underly the visual form. But it does not really stop there for the history of civilization is really the history of man's use of those minerals and his quest for them.

So there is plenty there for all kinds of human psyches --but I think the reason that the artistic predominates today is because the interest in science--especially chemistry and physics and geology is just not as prevalent in today's society as it was previoulsly. And they are really hard disciplines--there is a whole lot of complex complicated stuff going on that takes a lot of mental energy to even cursorily understand.

But then there is another thing that really makes this hobby fascinating and that is the geography of minerals. How many non mineral collectors in the world for example know where Minas Gerais is --but how many mineral collectors do NOT know where it is?

For example, when I finally made it to Tucson last year for the greatest assemblage of US specimens ever, with all those jaw dropping rocks, the one that I wanted the most was a large single cerussite specimen from the Silver Mine in Davidson County, NC. Not nearly as good as a $50 Tsumed one. Go figure--it takes all kinds --and there is a place for all kinds in this hobby.

As one of the great scientific literary artists said:

"The search is what anyone would undertake if he were not sunk in the everydayness of his own life. To be aware of the possibility of the search is to be onto something. Not to be onto something is to be in despair."
Walker Percy

Lot to search for in a rock.

[Paul Bordovsky]

This topic has been kicked around a bit, and I think that the Texas Collector's
edition of the MR stimulated a lot of discussion of collecting styles, and the roles of
science and esthetics in the building of collections. As Pete mentioned, there were some
negative comments on the rockhounds list, and complaints that so many of the specimens
were similar, and limited to a few species.

There is no denying that these specimens are beautiful, and are from classic or soon to be
classic localities. However, I think that there is another possibility for similarity in many of the
collections.

When folks develop an interest, they soon search out like-minded individuals as their interest
grows. There are usually influential people in these groups, whether a dealer, experienced collector,
miner, or an adventurer who travels to far flung regions to bring back mineral treasures.
When the new collector gets together with these passionate emissaries of the hobby, they can't
help but take on some of the tastes of the mentors. And as the collector's tastes grow and change
they start to influence newer members to the hobby.

I think you will find that the MAD group in Dallas has strong individuals in all four of the
categories I mentioned. And the HAMS group in Houston is pretty well connected to the
MAD group. Is it any surprise that these closely entwined groups would have collections
that might be similar?

Also be aware that there is a great mineral museum in Houston that has probably subtly
influenced many mineral folks. Just as Gail relates that seeing a wulfenite there
stimulated the urge to collect minerals, seeing the tourmalines in the museum influenced
me to start collecting these specimens. Though I soon found out the limitations of collecting
fine tourmalines.

I would wager that you would find a similar representation in the Texas collector's specimens
and that of the museum's finer pieces, at least in those collectors that were in the magazine.

This is just my opinion, and I'd enjoy knowing your thoughts on this.

Paul

[Jim]

Just a quick response to Paul's comment, "As Pete mentioned, there were some negative comments on the rockhounds list, and complaints that so many of the specimens were similar, and limited to a few species."

Those negative comments were the exception, not the rule. Wendell has said that this was the most successful supplement ever, caused many to re-subscribe and more supplements will now be produced in this style. Clearly, it was an overwhelming success. Yes, some could say that the diversity of individual species was limited, but then again, I stand by my comment that such a view ignores the fact that there were nuances to each of the specimens since they were found at different mines or different pockets, etc. Even the "similar" specimens showed key differences that would interest well-educated collectors.

In short, I don't buy the argument that the supplement was merely a redundant mineral fest focused only on beauty. I mean even Jordi's tagline is "very aesthetic, very rare." The two often go hand-in-hand.

Cheers!

[Jordi Fabre]

I would like to return again to my first post. Is nothing against those collections or those collectors. As I said, them are great, or even superb. I love them and I say thank you to the collectors to built them.

The wish of my post (ignoring that this was a topic already discussed in other fora) was to shake a little bit the actual routine what it seems to be that an "icon" should be gemmy, showy and not necessarily rare.

In fact this concept is relatively new, visiting old collections we can know this, in the past people collected both type of minerals: esthetics, but also ugly, unusual, specimens.

I would say: both rare and showy specimens make a still better collection. Is a kind of sophistication, to give an example: is like in an art Museum all paints were colorful Cézannes or Renoirs and not also terrible and strange Francis Bacon masterpieces...

Jordi

[Les Presmyk]

Wayne Thompson and I have this debate on a regular basis. He has observed that if I ever get rid of our top 20 pieces there will be no value to our collection left (Paula's thumbnail collection aside). He is looking at this from a pure aesthetic or "Ikon" point of view. I counter that the real value is in the bottom 50% of the collection where the locality, scientific or historic specimens reside.

This is where a visitor will find the finest Arizona topaz, the co-type specimen for laurelite, aravaipaite, grandreefite and pseudograndreefite, probably the best crystallized (or primary) malachite from Bisbee and a number of other specimens like that. This is the part of the collection where if someone has read about an old locality, they come over thinking that I will probably have one. If not me, then we can call one of the other top Arizona collectors in the area to see if they have one. Or, put another way, I came home from a Denver Show years ago with several specimens for our collection. I was just as happy with a $50 dioptase from an obscure locality as I was a more attractive and more expensive Bisbee azurite.

So, the aesthetic can co-exist with the lless than spectacular. The true test of any collector is the spirit with which they build their collection. The collectors and dealers whom we associate with have a profound affect on our collecting styles. It is only with the passage of time and developing a knowledge base that each of us become comfortable breaking free of those initial influences and building a collection that is truly our own.

[Jim]

Hi Jordi,

I see and appreciate your points. My feeling is that "icons" today aren't necessarily as you described. In the IKONS book there were several specimens that, to my eye, were not exactly gemmy showy, but were rare and extremely fine specimens for what they were.

I can say that the agenda of the Texas supplement was for the individual collectors to select specimens that highlighted their personal collecting philosophy. Thus, it just so happened that arguably many of the contributors have the same general taste in minerals. That said, the same could be said of the entire field. Certain species always seem to be best sellers, always attract attention in exhibits and many authorities agree there is a hierarchy to the mineral species that collectors most desire.

Of course, this all feeds into your basic point or questions about whether the field as a whole is moving toward the collecting requirements of aesthetics and perfection over "scientific" value. Personally, the only trend I follow is my own personal taste... which happens to be fine gem crystals.

This is a fun thread!

Cheers,

[alfredo]

"Beautiful" and "ugly" are very personal concepts. I myself think Jordi's hessite pictured above is the MOST beautiful mineral I've seen since Tucson! So if that is the example of an "ugly" mineral to start this discussion, then I'm totally confused! Rare species + rare elements + unusual habit = beautiful (to me) - I'd rather have that hessite specimen than the best aquamarine ever mined.

(Jordi, you'd better get rid of that hessite before I see you in Ste Marie, because I can't afford it, so I'd just be forced to kill you for it ;-))

[Les Presmyk]

I guess a more basic question is why do we somehow attribute a fine hessite as having more scientific value than a fine beryl or fine elbaite? While today there may appear to be more concern about perfection or aesthetics, I would submit that older collections would have been better served if the collectors had been a bit more discerning. How many times have you looked at a collection from the 1940's to 1960's and observed that instead of buying 5 specimens for $5 each, how much better the collection would be if the person had spent $25 on one specimen?

[Paul Bordovsky]

Les said

"How many times have you looked at a collection from the 1940's to 1960's and observed that instead of buying 5 specimens for $5 each, how much better the collection would be if the person had spent $25 on one specimen?"

That is where the experience and knowledge come into play. And I don't have to
go back to the 40's or 60's, or look at someone else's collection. I just think back to
1998, my first Tucson show. The twenty or so specimens I bought home, and what
my $600 could have bought. But it is hard, hard, for a newbie to only get a couple
of things. Don't you think it was the same for the old time mineral lovers?

And in fact, it is still hard for me to limit myself, when there is so much cool stuff out there.