FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[nurbo]

This piece was priced at a very reasonable 40 euro's, hence my surprise to see "Damage free" in the description, if it were truly free of all damage I would have expected to pay a lot more than that, but the point still stands

, I do get annoyed at wilful mislabellings, I know in my collection thread Ive mislabelled lots of pieces but I dont lack the humility to accept others correcting me on this and Im actually happy to be told the correct information, getting things wrong is fine so long as you put your hand up and admit it when others point it out,
but,
this guy, I think, was aware that this piece should'nt have been described as "Damage free" or he would have maintained it was free of damage in his emails to me, even if he had said, "Sorry I didnt notice that" it would have been fine too, but no, he tried to tell me that though it was damaged I shouldnt think of it as such, which is patronising and to my mind somewhat dishonest. Also I expressed concern with the piece via email on a Saturday but didnt receive a reply until Monday evening by which time he said he had already mailed it.

[Carles Millan]

Nurbo,

I own six calcites from Elmwood, so I have some familiarity with this material and its prices.

I think the price of your specimen (40 euros) is quite fair, even cheap. The damage no doubt has been discounted although the dealer is never going to recognize it, so you only have to decide if you want to keep the piece or go directly to get a full refund. Just wait for the piece to arrive, have it in your hands, and take a decision.

That said, if I were you, I'd never purchase from that guy again.

[nurbo]

Hi Carles,
Ive admired your Calcites and all your other pieces, you have some absolute beauties, really stunning, I also agree the piece in question is very nicely priced, though I have noticed many dealers dropping their prices in the current economic climate

I notice from your collection thread that many of your pieces are "Damage free", I would be interested to know your thoughts on how this elusive quality should be defined.

and p.s. I definitely wont be buying from the guy again, as the saying goes there are plenty more fish in the sea.

[Les Presmyk]

I have read with interest the various opinions of how collectors, and dealers, define "damage free". The calcite is obviously, although slightly, chipped. It is not damage free but then it is up to the buyer to decide whether the price on the piece offsets whatever level of damage they are willing to accept. This has been a lesson for the collector and how that dealer defines damage, or a lack thereof. I am surprised that no one has brought up dings and wilburs into this discussion.

I always smile when someone is trying to sell me a specimen and attempts to explain away any damage by telling me it is natural (contact with the other side of the pocket, the pocket collapsed eons ago, or whatever) and somehow that makes the damage okay. A chipped or broken or contacted crystal is just that, no matter how it came to be. I define damage based on whether I can see it or not without the use of magnification, although now I need to make sure I have my reading glasses on.

If you are uncomfortable with the amount of damage on a specimen or crystal, no matter how it got there, do not buy it. However, as was stated, we locality collectors have a tendency to excuse certain damage for rare or oddball species from a particular locale. But, that is usually not the case for the world-wide collector. Do we want to discuss repaired specimens?

[GneissWare]

Since you brought up dings and wilburs, how about "edge wear", "contacted" (usually it looks like contact with a small hammer), "minor(?) chipping", and a whole host of other useful phrases designed to obfuscate the fact that the rocks are damaged.

[Matt_Zukowski]

Living in Alaska and thus unable to attend many shows in the lower 48, I bought almost all of my early stuff from auctions over the internet. This experience has taught me that, at least in terms of my taste, very rarely will I find anything of sufficiently high quality offered in this way. I am now slowly disgorging most all I have previously purchased because of this. I am jaded about stuff one can buy over the internet.

I think shows are indispensable for building a collection while minimizing disappointments. Plus i get to finally talk to people who are as nuts about minerals as i am.

As far as the calcite goes, it sure looks like a major corner is wiped out. If so, I would return this to the dealer and then never do business with them again.

[Carles Millan]

Nurbo wrote:

>I notice from your collection thread that many of your pieces are "Damage free", I would
>be interested to know your thoughts on how this elusive quality should be defined.

Hi Nurbo!

Especially after reading this thread, I don't know what exactly "damage free" (or "no damage") should mean.

But, to answer your specific question, when I say "no damage" in one of my specimen descriptions, I mean that with my naked eye I can't see any damage there except (1) in the attachment point or area, and (2) in the periphery. I'm aware, however, that number 2 might be redundant because the periphery is usually a part of the attachment point.

Perhaps we should never speak about "damage free". We'd better refer to it as "damage degree" since, as Alfredo Petrov rightfully says above, virtually all the mineral specimens have some damage. The problem here would be how to convert that degree to numbers. Any idea?

[nurbo]

Hi everyone, the piece arrived in the mail today.
Firstly let me say these are quite serious close up photos, the terminal edge these pictures are of is 12mm long, I love my digital camera, my eyes are rubbish Im very long sighted, I can see a sheep on a mountainside 10 miles away but cant read a newspaper, though these marks are discernable to me with my glasses on,

Anyway here are some photos taken on the macro setting so they will show every detail.

[James Catmur]

I would personally call that 'some damage' - it is clearly not 'no damage' and one might even say 'substantial damage'

James

[Carles Millan]

Nurbo,

If you're not happy with the specimen, and after seeing the dealer's behavior, don't be afraid to repack and send it back. I've only done so once, but when I did I got very satisfied with myself.

By the way, what number would you give to the "damage degree" of that calcite? Between, say, zero and ten, zero being the absolute perfection and ten the maximum conceivable damage.

[nurbo]

Roughly measuring the area's which are clearly damaged from the photo it equates to around half of the edge, so Id give it 5 out of 10. By eye only the cracked one is visible, the edge just looks like it isnt straight.but my eyes are not great.

[alfredo]

I find it interesting that a couple of participants in this discussion have mentioned becoming far sighted with age, an unfortunately common phenomenon. It implies that if "no damage" means "no dings visible to the naked eye", then specimens that were too damaged when we were younger might become acceptable as we age and can't see the tiny dings anymore? I have the opposite problem myself - I'm very myopic - so I can hold rocks 10cm from my eyes and see very tiny details that other folk can only see with a good loupe - Perhaps that's why I claim that ALL specimens are damaged. (On the other hand, I have a hard time reading street signs and house numbers.)

On a related tangent: Perhaps eyesight problems influence the size range of specimens we prefer? I prefer micromounts of tiny rare species, and thumbnails, and I'm very nearsighted - Coincidence? Do all of our farsighted members prefer cabinet-size specimens, which look good when observed from 2 metres away?

[Les Presmyk]

A numbering system for grading minerals is certainly possible, but not very likely. One first has to agree on the criteria and then who the evaluators will be. It is like trying to come up with the list of the world's top 100 tourmaline, quartz or calcite specimens. A group of collectors and dealers might be able to agree on the top 10 or even 20 specimens of each group but they will never agree on the order and then the remaining 80 will be based on personal preference or economics. In essence, how can I get my specimen on the list to enhance its value or marketability or position with a prospective client.

Years ago, when most coins had relatively low value, a qualitative grading system was employed by collectors. Coins were graded Poor, Good, Very Good, Fine, Very Fine, Almost Uncirculated, Uncirculated and Proof. Over the past 20 to 30 years, a numeric system was added so now there are 5 or 10 grades of Proof alone and Proof is supposed to be the best that can be minted. There are several grading services out there and some of the grading is dependent on whether you are buying or selling a coin. Finally, it is all about economics. A Proof-70 can command significantly more money than a Proof-65 or 67 as each collector tries to buy, or gets sold, the most perfect coin possible.

Now, getting back to minerals, one will have to set up a scale and get people to agree to the criteria. As soon as one collector or one dealer does not get the number they want, they will either discredit the system or start a new and competing one. I am not being cynical, just practical.

It is better for all us to research the market, be comfortable in our knowledge of what we collect and what we are willing to accept in terms of damage, and not worry about whether it is a ding, a rub, a chip, a wilbur or whatever. Whether the damage is natural or caused by humans, animals or plants, it is damage and each collector needs to determine what their threshold is for accepting damage.

Finally, I remember the predictions that the internet would eliminate the shows. The internet has made an impact but this is a hobby and business that is built on friendships and relationships. We enjoy comparing our finds with others and that is why shows will continue. Minerals are three dimensional and it is difficult to adequately show a specimen with tw dimensional photos.

[nurbo]

I thought Id repost the earlier photo of the piece which is fairly close to the actual size, Ive put a rectangle around the area Ive magnified in the most recent photos just to give perspective on the real world scale of the damage.,

[lluis]

Hi all

I agree with Nurbo: damaged, I thought to see it from first photo and is confirmed by his excellent close ups.
I, as Carles, have only returned one piece in my life. And I have not even received refund :-(

What I love more is the answer I got when I complained to a son of a seller (two very different characters; father had a customer; son lost him): " is every time more difficult to get Tsumeb pieces without damage" .......I never dispute about price, but I ask always about damage...
On the other hand, when I said to a friend dealer that the mimetite from Tsumeb was tipped, he refused to charge the amount to me....

I like Internet. It makes me easier to search and found rare species (Alfredo, do you have any site :-) ?). And there are a lot of very nice people. Just some bad apples....

My definition of no damage is easy: I could not see damage with a 10x lenses, even rotating piece to see reflections. I worked by a jeweller....Maybe contaminated (also, I sorted gems by color, so, I suppose that I am very oriented to small differences; like in my present work: we could spend several hours about the merits and demerits of a charge of 0,13% in fron of one of 0,15% in Open-end....

Jordi knows me and always point to me if something is damaged (even slightly...)

With best wishes

Lluís