FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Jordi Fabre]

[Tracy]

I think it's a question of personal preference and collecting objectives. If one is trying to build a world-class collection, then maybe not all that excessive. Myself, I don't mind small imperfections, or even overtly visible ones, if the overall specimen appeals to me. But I'm sure others would feel different about the subject. I like Jay's statement that Mother Nature isn't perfect.

Wasn't there a comment in a different topic that most specimens might be regarded as "broken" or "damaged" because they have to be physically extracted from the earth?

- Tracy

[lluis]

Hi, Jordi, Tracy, List

Well, Jordi knows well me and I am one of those with a 12x achromatic lenses to look for the imperfections (usually diamond lenses are 10x, but last time I need to buy a new one, I found that 12x.... :-) )
Yes, with a very rare specimen, few known and so, I am more indulgent, but I fear that I suffer from this disease.

Maybe because my works deals with very minute diferences and I am trained to spot the imperfection, but if I get a damaged specimen, I see only the imperfection, not the overal pleasing piece.

Well, mother nature could not be perfect, but for me is a big difference, as Tracy points, as a mineral damaged when extracting it, or a mineral that was in a geode and techtonic movements broke it....Nature may not be perfect, but She does not need the help of humans to be less perfect....

The broken in geode could be acceptable for me; the brushed when extracting not (with the exceptions....specially with a serendipite :-)

With best wishes

Lluís

[Montanpark]

Hi all,
Jordi, that is a good question. I for myself consider a specimen as undamaged if you can´t see any dings and chips with bare eye. I have quite a lot specimens in my collection that have small dings but the overall condition is very good... it certainly lies in the eye of the collector if he wants to have pristine and perfect samples and does not accept minimalst flaws. But this reflects in price and i am not willing to pay an exorbitant sum for a specimen that isn´t really better than another with a marginal broken crystal but costs 5 x more money.

As my collection focus is on aesthetics i try to get specimens with no or minimal damage of course, but a minor flaw wouldn´t detract me from purchasing a specimen especially if the price is ok. If you are dealing with old time classics - and i have a lot of them in my boxes - this question is academic because lots of the old specimens did suffer more or less during time. Their mineralogical value isn´t diminished by that in no way. So it is the focus and aim of a collection which determines the perspective on that issue - so far i am totally with Tracy.

One of my favourite specimens is repaired .. but i still consider it to be one of my most beautiful collection specs and wouldn´t think about to reject because it has been repaired.

Just 2 cents
cheers
Roger

[jaysminerals]

Hi Jordi
Interesting topic you came up with relating to my topic. I will add another point of view to this. I have this Fluorite from Frohnau Germany. Besides the fact that the piece is hard to photograph it has some minor damage to some crystals and in the upper middle part.
Does not really affect the overall apperence in the showcase. But here comes the interesting part. Due to the fact that there is a damage, this damage opens a view "inside" the specimen. You can clearly see how the crystal stucture is build. This story would never come up if the piece would be in perfect condition.

But this is always a personal thing. Some only collect "perfect=no damage" pieces others also look for pieces that tell stories like this Fluorite.

[Tobi]

Hi,

i agree with Roger. As a mineral collector of course you always try go get the best specimens. But it is often hard to find real "perfection" in nature, and many minerals never occur in perfect condition. I think that it is no problem when a mineral specimen has a little damage, as long as it doesn't disturb the aesthetics of the whole specimen.

I was told that especially in the U.S. collectors focus on ultimate perfection and don't even accept the smallest dings. This is a collecting philosophy i appreciate, but for myself i'm a little bit more "tolerant" with small and nearly invisible damages.

And remember that some minerals never occur in perfect condition. An example: I'm a great fan of the apatites from Sludyanka/Russia, i love them for their size, their great colour and their contrast to the calcite matrix. But i never saw a specimen from that location with no damages, broken edges oder cracks. But nevertheless these apatites look great to my eyes. I consider the little cracks or whatever not as a "damage" but just as the work of nature.

Tobi

[Matt_Zukowski]

The closer I look at a specimen, the more likely I am to find some damage, however minor. Every specimen I have ever handled has had some damage at some level on some part of the piece.

The amount of damage I will accept for a specimen that I intend to keep for the long haul has decreased dramatically with time. Nevertheless, I have a few that I really like even though they have some damage visible to the eye, even on the display face. It depends upon the piece and how rare/interesting it is, and what is considered damage. I have a Hilton fluorite plate with the most amazing luster, but there are some internal fractures representing incipient cleaves. I also have a cabinet Bunker Hill pyromorphite with a small area of missing xtals. These are keepers. But I have gotten very picky about quartz and pyrite.

[Ed Huskinson]

Wilbers. Blame it on Dave Wilber. He'll look at a piece with his 10X, find a ding, and comment on it. It came into usage: "a Wilber". To some folks the absence of damage (even on the micro-level) is paramount. So good for them. For me, I'm with Tracy, Jay, Tobias et al. With my limited pocketbook, I cannot afford to forego a wonderful specimen because it has a minor ding or two. Witness the Neudorf galena I so proudly display. 'Course I lie a bit and tell the visitor that it was Goethe himself who used a blowpipe on the upper quadrant, and it was so-and-so who scratched the surface. ("Ah, it's a minor fiducial reference point!!").

So yes, I have the odd ding or missing crystal here or there, but the specimen itself still pleases me, and generally my eye is not drawn to the flaw to the point of disparaging the specimen.

It all comes down to whether the specimen gives you pleasure to view. If you are going to be fixating over whatever perceived flaw or ding, then it is going to be all the more difficult for you to enjoy the hobby.

Still, there are many people out there who place freedom from damage as the ultimate criterion. To view Ralph Clark's specimens or Jack Halpern's collection, well, you better get out your 12X Iawamotos to find damage. Regardless, when you see the wondrous things in those collections, it does generate a genuine appreciation for the pristine. And as for the "high end collectors", well, when you are purchasing specimens at that end of the spectrum, it is difficult to pay those prices for damaged or dinged specimens. There is that to factor in as well.

I hope to start posting photos of my collection here pretty soon, dings and all, when things have slowed down a bit for me.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter. Les and possibly Tony will weigh in with theirs a little later, I'm sure.

Thanks,

Ed

[strahler]

Jordi,

This is a good point. I would say that acceptable damage relies on a whole host of circumstances. These range from the size, price, and nature of a find.

Price, Price, Price. To me, a visibly damaged or repaired piece, instantly is devalued by at least half. In common minerals, the devaluation is 80-90%. So, if a piece is priced accordingly, I could see someone accepting damage. Too many times, I see low quality pieces with damage trying to command undamaged prices, this is not acceptable at all.

Many finds, had few pieces that were unrepaired, such as the large Pederniera tourmalines. Finds like the N'Chwaning rhodos had cleaves on many crystals. These seemed to be acceptable instances of damage or repair in the mineral collecting hobby.

Thumbnails, with damage, these are unacceptable to me. As the size of specimens increases, usually the perfection decreases. People who collect larger sizes are more apt to allow some damage.

For a world class collection, damaged pieces are completely unacceptable to me, unless it is the rarest of instances. Truly world class, to me, means that these pieces are so rare and unique. This uniqueness refers to size, damage, luster, and pureness of color. Not everyone can collect at this level, most of us have to settle for a less than pristine specimen from time to time.

[Gail]

With 4,000 pieces in our collection I should imagine we would have 10 if we were against the slightest ding or damage. Nature made minerals, I am not worried if there is some small sign of damage or natural growth irregularities. Isn't that what makes the mineral individual? We have a few that are pretty darn perfect, but we are not sticklers as long as a damaged area isn't all I see when I look at a specimen.
I once saw an Anglesite that was rather beautiful, but I saw an area that was annoying to me, so I didn't buy it. That was a case of knowing I would always be looking at that one spot, no matter how you turned it you couldn't lose it.
Others I have don't bother me because you can sometimes mount the mineral in such a way as to minimize or even hide an unsightly blemish. ( I feel like I am talking a teen age advert for complexion acne medication! )
If I only wanted to collect 15 pieces for my collection, then I might try to challenge myself to find perfection. but that is not my, or Jim's, collecting style.

[Peter]

I think most collectors have had the whole suite from not perfect at all to perhaps completely for the eye undamaged specimen. To me, there is so much more interesting in minerals, their overall esthetics and beauty, color, lustre, morphology, associated species, locality, a specimens fit in a serie of others, history/provenance or whatever it may be. Yes, I have some incredible superb undamaged specimens and of course there are more small specimens in this category.
Now, many of the worlds finest specimens are repaired.
I agree with Strahler that often not perfect specimens are highly priced. Especially so for gem species of carving quality, without any particular esthetics, perhaps not even great color.... I have been surprised so many times seeing big ugly crystals (ugly as to quality!) sold for five digits and even six digits of aquqmqrine of light blue color, poor tourmalines of dark green colro without any special interest etc and ay the same time the same dealer has a wonderful specimen for a fraction of the price.... We all have different taste. A heavily damaged TN unless of an extremely rare specie in exceptional crystals etc
I have several fantastic specimens with some damage , they may be among the best from that locality etc.

I also LOVE incredible perfect specimens, or near perfect. My eye is drawn to them among tens of thousands..... instantly. It is easy, I do not have to use my brain at all.
Only when it comes to another side of it.
Nothing wrong to want perfect specimens but if that is the only criteria, colelcting becomes very limited and quite booring and probably the collector have hard to appreciate other sides of mineralogy.

Is your husband or wife perfect? Well, really? Perhaps they had a tooth repaired? or a broken leg...... or had some operation? Still they may be attractive to you!
And how about friends?
Are they all Ikons when it comes to sincerety, genuinity, honesty, trustworthyness, facial or bodyly perfectness-beauty?

Some may have many wilbers which have tought them much in life, made them mature, they may be beautiful gems inside a great matrix and great friends!

[Tobi]

I think it's an important thing Gail said: "Nature made minerals [...] Isn't that what makes the mineral individual?" I agree with that because you cannot expect nature to produce crystals as perfect as they theoretically could be. Ok, sometimes such perfect crystals occur, but maybe on one of thousand of mineral specimens.

Especially when specimens are larger the chances are small that the crystals are grown perfectly and have no damage. Here's another example, and again it's apatite from Russia: The mineralogical museum here in Marburg is among the best in Germany, and one of the highlights of the collection is a giant matrix specimen of apatite from Baikal Lake with great coloured crystals up to 20 cm - i've never seen an apatite specimen as impressive as this one: You enter the room and from a distance of 10 metres it takes your breath ... BUT: When you get close to the display you will see that these giant crystals have many cracks and dings over and over and one of the smaller crystals is not even good terminated.

So what do you think about that? Would you say "Wow - a matrix apatite of great colour and 20 cm crystals!" or rather "Oh no, there's a crack in the crystal, how ugly!" ... I don't like it when people only see the negative things - and to me a mineral specimen can also look fantastic when it has some minor damages ...

... Sure, it's great to have specimens with size AND quality, but often you only have the choice between size OR quality ...

But i dont' mind - the great work of nature as we see it in minerals is a wonderful thing even without ultimate perfection!

[strahler]

Gail,

I think it is important, the point you make. Does one want a collection of ten pieces, okay, than perfection is probably something to make as the basis for any piece in that collection. There are few collectors that collect like this.

If one wants a diverse worldwide collection, a locality colllection, or a species collection; one will probably have a few or more pieces with blemishes. When I see these collections, I appreciate them all the same.

Peter,

Great analogy, about minerals and a spouse, so true.

Colecting styles are so vast; this is what makes our hobby so great. It also gives everyone something to go for in the hobby. Some people collect only matrix pieces, some only gem crystals, and others only thumbnails. I think a true mineral enthusiast can appreciate them all.

Nature is a amazing.

[Peter]

So very true Ryan
A true mineral enthusiast can appreciate much of the spectrum in mineralogy!
My best specimen by far is my wife! and she loves great minerals to.
Let me know when you are next in Europe Ryan! Swizz Alps!

[lluis]

Hi, list

Seems that I am the only one that is afected adversely by wilbers (I understad very well David Wilber) Poor of me :-(

On the pother side, we are comenting tweo things
-not perfect pieces
-human damaged pieces

Not perfect pieces, undamaged, are one thing
Human damaged pieces are other sort.

I have not deep pockets (unlucky of me!), but I have around 2000 pieces, and except a dozen (rare species; not exactly well fitted in the aesthetics departement....), all them are wilber free; I collect from TN/miniature till large miniature.

Just time and friends that advert me from the pieces I like ...

Anyway, thanks God that we all collect following different goals and tastes, other wise, would be a fight for the only piece that we all would like to have !!!!!!!!! :-)

With best wishes from a #patient of wilberitis, and my regards to David Wilber

Lluís