| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
simonoff
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 161
|
 Posted: Aug 01, 2012 19:37 Post subject: Re: Smithsonian 2012 |
|
|
I have received several corrections on the Smithsonian labels that I thought I would share. I do not have enough knowledge to agree or disagree with the suggested modifications, but I have been assured that the person making the suggestions is an expert on the minerals of the region.
Concerning the Becquerelite from Mashamba
Here are the edited comments from Paul De Bondt - THANKS PAUL
The Mashamba specimen is uranophane or in the best cases sklodowskite but all the analysed specimens of that type where confirmed uranophane. Becquerelite sits ALWAYS on massive uraninite as it is one of the first alteration products to form. The link that you added shows this very well. The black mineral is pure uraninite. As uraninite, the primairy uranium mineral, was never found in Mashamba, Becquerelite could not occur. If the uraninite was eroded away leaving only silicates and carbonates or like in Mashamba vanadates, the becquerelite would have disolved away too because it's very easily to remobilize.
Concerning the metatorbernite's location
Here are the edited comments from Paul - THANK YOU PAUL:
The torbernite is wrong is for several reasons. The first and most important for a museum is that Shinkolobwe torbernite changes rapidly to metatorbernite and gets light green and opaque in a few days/months and crumbles easily after that. Musonoi torbernite does dehydrate also, but the colour and luster remains. Shinkolobwe torbernite is also not as bright as Musonoi. The crystals cluster tightly together and give a more filled-up crystal cluster while Musonoi gives sharp separated crystals. Shinkolobwe torbernite is found in the phosphate zone and is usually mixed up with curite, saléeite and other yellow stuff, but not always. Heterogenite, the black stain on the matrix of the Smithsonian piece, is typical. In Shinkolobwe, the heterogenite sometimes covers the torbernite but never or very rarely in Musonoi.
Concerning the francevillite
The correct location should be Mounana Mine (Mouana Mine), Franceville, Haut-Ogooué Province, Gabon
Again, I am not claiming that the updated information is definitely correct - I am just passing on the suggestions from someone who knows much more than I.
Bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
simonoff
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Aug 01, 2012 19:41 Post subject: Re: Smithsonian 2012 |
|
|
Concerning image 4262 - 2 fluorite experts have contacted me and said that this is actually from "Weardale, not Cumbria and almost certainly from Boltsburn, which is the only place I've seen throw these odd elongate crystals. Many old specimens just labeled Weardale or Cumbria almost interchangably." - Joan Kureczka with agreement from Martin Gruell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simonoff
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Aug 01, 2012 19:45 Post subject: Re: Smithsonian 2012 |
|
|
| simonoff wrote: |
I have received several corrections on the Smithsonian labels that I thought I would share. I do not have enough knowledge to agree or disagree with the suggested modifications, but I have been assured that the person making the suggestions is an expert on the minerals of the region.
Concerning the Becquerelite from Mashamba IMG_4384
Here are the edited comments from Paul De Bondt - THANKS PAUL
The Mashamba specimen is uranophane or in the best cases sklodowskite but all the analysed specimens of that type where confirmed uranophane. Becquerelite sits ALWAYS on massive uraninite as it is one of the first alteration products to form. The link that you added shows this very well. The black mineral is pure uraninite. As uraninite, the primairy uranium mineral, was never found in Mashamba, Becquerelite could not occur. If the uraninite was eroded away leaving only silicates and carbonates or like in Mashamba vanadates, the becquerelite would have disolved away too because it's very easily to remobilize.
Concerning the metatorbernite's location IMG_4383
Here are the edited comments from Paul - THANK YOU PAUL:
The torbernite is wrong is for several reasons. The first and most important for a museum is that Shinkolobwe torbernite changes rapidly to metatorbernite and gets light green and opaque in a few days/months and crumbles easily after that. Musonoi torbernite does dehydrate also, but the colour and luster remains. Shinkolobwe torbernite is also not as bright as Musonoi. The crystals cluster tightly together and give a more filled-up crystal cluster while Musonoi gives sharp separated crystals. Shinkolobwe torbernite is found in the phosphate zone and is usually mixed up with curite, saléeite and other yellow stuff, but not always. Heterogenite, the black stain on the matrix of the Smithsonian piece, is typical. In Shinkolobwe, the heterogenite sometimes covers the torbernite but never or very rarely in Musonoi.
Concerning the francevillite (IMG_4380
The correct location should be Mounana Mine (Mouana Mine), Franceville, Haut-Ogooué Province, Gabon
Again, I am not claiming that the updated information is definitely correct - I am just passing on the suggestions from someone who knows much more than I.
Bob |
I added the image numbers above - not sure if there is a better way to reference earlier posts - sorry for the confusion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simonoff
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Aug 01, 2012 19:47 Post subject: Re: Smithsonian 2012 |
|
|
Concerning IMG_4323. I am told these these are from Chimney Rock Quarry
Bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simonoff
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Aug 01, 2012 20:48 Post subject: Re: Smithsonian 2012 |
|
|
Again, this is from someone who has studied English fluorites
I am told that IMG_4551 is Weardale. It's either Heights Mine or White's Level, Middlehope. Would need to see the matrix to tell. Given the probable age of the piece, probably Middlehope. Many of the older pieces labeled Heights were actually from this mine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jordi Fabre
Overall coordinator of the Forum
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 5047
Location: Barcelona
|
| Posted: Aug 02, 2012 01:19 Post subject: Re: Smithsonian 2012 |
|
|
Is fine Bob, I already added to each post the link to the post where the corrected specimens are. This is not so easy so probably better if I do it.
You do well, thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simonoff
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Aug 02, 2012 06:12 Post subject: Re: Smithsonian 2012 |
|
|
| Jordi Fabre wrote: |
Is fine Bob, I already added to each post the link to the post where the corrected specimens are. This is not so easy so probably better if I do it.
You do well, thanks. |
Thank you so much Jordi!
This last one however doesn't seem to be pointing to the right place
Bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jordi Fabre
Overall coordinator of the Forum
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 5047
Location: Barcelona
|
| Posted: Aug 02, 2012 06:27 Post subject: Re: Smithsonian 2012 |
|
|
| simonoff wrote: | | ...This last one however doesn't seem to be pointing to the right place |
It does, the text that I point out (...I added the image numbers above - not sure if there is a better way to reference earlier posts - sorry for the confusion) is below your quoted message! ;-)
In fact is easier as it seems, if you want to try, when you use "Reply quoting this message" you have this at the top of the message:
[quote="simonoff"]
so, then you should just write the route of the message you want to point out with the prefix "In" and a space before, like:
[quote="In https://www.mineral-forum.com/message-board/viewtopic.php?p=24909#24909 simonoff"]
and when you publish it (better to do "preview" before) it will show:
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Register
Log in
Forgotten your password?
