FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[John S. White]

Actually you are quite correct, but if you are waiting for dealers to add this additional information (mother rock) I am afraid that you will grow old before you see it. It is simply asking too much of dealers. Some may actually know what the mother rock was or is, but most don't because they acquired their material from someone else who did not record the nature of the mother rock. Even if they did, there is no obligation on the part of the dealer to include this detail on his/her labels. This information is rarely seen on labels, and for rather obvious reasons. There is only so much information that is expected of dealers with regard to what they put on their labels, and mother rock is not included among what is expected or even desired by most of their customers.

[captaincaveman]

Just noticed this topic and sorry for dragging it from the distant past. Sometimes I think the aesthetics of mineral specimens can lure people into the hobby, where that can stay as an appreciation of the aesthetics, or in my case and many others the "magpie effect" has drawn me in, and then an interest has begun from that.

Minerals and mineralogy is such a daunting area from the outside looking in and like so many hobbies, the learning curve is initially steep but never ending.

[cascaillou]

Concerning aesthetics: this is the starting point for any collector I think, but then comes a natural curiosity about what minerals are and how they form.

Concerning labels: the most important data is a detailed origin of the mineral (by detailed I mean that country+state/district isn't accurate enough). Besides that, the nature of the host rock is an additional mineralogically relevant data, but I never saw any label mentioning it.

Concerning easy garnet identification: use a handheld spectroscope (preferably combined with verification of specific gravity and refractive index)
see here: https://www.geminterest.com/spectlist.php?lettre=G
(Link normalized by FMF)

[basti]

I thought just about this recently. Buying selection of killer aesthetic pieces is just a matter of having enough money. I can build world-class collection within a year - give me $20 million and you have it :) On the other hand I understand why many people buy instead of collecting. There are many legitimate reasons. Some buyers are very well educated experts, some are just "investors".

What worries me more is stupid field collectors. They do not document their finds and they often throw out very rare minerals or ruin interesting localities. Just one recent story - guy was blasting site with smoky quartz vugs. Head-sized feldspar crystals and fist sized apatites were dumped because he simply collected only smokies and that "junk" was not interesting for him. I recently reviewed one article about pocket pegmatites in one particular area. There were several hundred pocket pegmatites found, but only 3 (!!!) of these were ever published. All 3 only in collectors magazine, no science at all. Basically "We found smokies and feldspars with great color and they were huge!". What a great results for area heavily collected during last 150 years...

[Martin Rich]