FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[bob kerr]

I finally got a chance to read the MR Volume 1 for 2017 that focused on N'Chwaning. It's a wonderful and comprehensive article on the subject - as is almost always the case for MR articles.

Something kinda bugged me though - on page 13 - "this article will confine it's attention to the occurrences of the N'Chwaning 1, 2 and 3 mines, the better to help collectors sort their specimens between the three".

Really? does it matter? or - does it matter if the source is the Wessels or Hotazel? Although they are different mine shafts and produced somewhat different crystal forms and species, they are in the same ore body - The Kalahari Manganese Field.

Do I care if my Red Cloud wulfenites came from the north stope/shaft or the south stope/shaft?

Just looking for other thoughts from fellow FMFers - is this level of detail important to you? or is just Kalahari Manganese Field enough.

Similarly, is the mine level all that important? Some of my specimens - especially from Mapimi - come with this level of detail. Who is to validate these data?

thanks,
bob

[John Betts]

Yes, I care.

[kushmeja]

For me, the more information about a specimen that I have, the better, as in many cases it can provide context with respect to things like typical crystal formations, species and associations. That being said, it isn't critical for me, and not having more detailed locality information wouldn't prevent me from adding a specimen to my collection, nor would it decrease the value of a specimen to me.

[bob kerr]

[Jesse Fisher]

For people who simply want a collection of pretty rocks that level of detail may not be important. However, if one considers mineral specimens to be items of geological/scientific importance, then the more detail that accompanies the specimen the more value the specimen potentially has as a scientific or historical document. Once that information is separated from the specimen it becomes difficult, if not impossible to recreate it with any certainty. This has the knock-on effect of causing many people to make "best guess" attributions to poorly located specimens. If the guess is wrong, and it ends up on a label accompanying the specimen, then a disservice is done to both the collector and scientific communities.

[John Betts]

[Tobi]

[Peter Lemkin]

I know I value a specimen a LOT more if it has 'extra detail' - be it exact location, person who dug it out, date it was dug out, interesting notes on habit, inclusions, associations, if it was ever in an important collection, etc. et al. I have often had to get specimens at shows or in trade with only the species and very general location, if any other than the country - but I'm not very happy when I have to - and it must be a very interesting piece, or I know the missing details. More is better. I make my own labels and catalog entries with lots of detail....I'm a collector and a scientist.

[lluis]

Hi, ALL

As John, who I know personally, I also care. And I care a lot....

Anyone his manias. Mine is to be as correct as I can. A piece without location, well, is not interesting (apart the pyrope with two bad labels.... It is an "history teller".... :-))

With best wishes

Lluís

[kushmeja]

[Michael Shaw]

Bob,

As John, Jesse and others have pointed out, it is my belief that a specimen should be accompanied by as detailed information as is available. I concur with Peter in that I value specimens where detailed information on specific locations/levels within the mine, the collector, date collected, etc. is furnished. I do not necessarily believe that they are worth a lot more monetarily, but it does make them more interesting to me.

While that level of detail is not important to every collector, keep in mind that we are only temporary custodians of the specimens in our collection. Down the line a collector who may acquire a specimen from my collection may value this information. If the information is not recorded, it will most likely be lost forever.

Michael

[John Betts]

In this case, having a specific mine name is an indication of when the specimen was recovered. The #2 mine did not open until 1981 and the #3 opened in 2006.

Additionally, the Hotazel Formation was faulted and offset. So while it is true that all minerals were from the Hotazel Formation, they are from different blocks of that formation at different depths.

[lluis]

Hi, Kushmeja

I think that we say same....
But for me N'Chawning Mine I, II or III, is crucial info... Other would be that it is from Hotazel....
My mind. Maybe faulted, but my mind...
At the end, what means precise info depends. For some, Africa would be enough. For others, pit and depth would be important. I am in the last ones.... Again, maybe my fault (and pyrope is just for another reason... Not for locality (California is not very precise: But as history teller, well, great. Again in my mind)

With best wishes

Lluís

[James Catmur]

I guess the fact that I spent a 6 hour train journey translating this article so as to help other people might hint at my view!

https://www.mineral-forum.com/message-board/viewtopic.php?p=17875&highlight=collada#17875

I care and like to have as much information as I can get. It helps me locate the specimen in time and space.

James

[SteveB]

Care? Certainly.

I care mostly that the information is honest and accurate. I don't care if the specimen comes with a wikipedia print on the mineral just that the collection information is as honest and accurate as possible.

If I have doubts about the honesty of the seller I will not purchase from them. Mostly the location itself is irrelevant, I collect specimens I like and can afford, the locatity it self has no bearing on what I'm willing to pay. That said I have one location I do specifically collect from.

I care about the integrity of my collection and where it will end up when I die and to that end Iwant it as well catalogued as I can make it, its scientific value is more important than its dollar value.