“FOV ~6¾ x 4½ mm; “edges” of folia in lower right ~2 mm. Update: Upon further review, I have decided that the original text was too full of speculation with very little support. So I have decided to post this as “unidentified”. It appears to be a replacement of hendricksite, but it does not look like typical “caswellite”. ”

“This is the original parent photo. Usually I keep the original text, but in this case there was such a muddle of information and misinformation that I got rid of it. As it turns out, this side of the specimen has relatively little of the pectolite or prehnite (at the bottom). When I took this photo, I mistook the white stuff near the top for these minerals. But now that I have functional SW & MW UV sources, it is clear that the white stuff – though superficially somewhat similar – is neither of those minerals. It barely fluoresces (dull white) under SW, and very strongly bluish-white under MW. As discussed under the new parent photo, it is currently unidentified. This side of the specimealso has most of the hoped for “roeblingite”. It is the less-white area above the bright white spherules. HCl says that it is actually mostly calcite. In addition, there are several very reflective, micaceous areas (most evident on the far right about 1/3 of the way up from the bottom) that were suggested might be margarosanite. But they don’t fluoresce at all. The micro child photo has a bit more discussion of these – but they remain unidentified. ”

“Size 6.5 x 7.5 x 11 cm. (This face 6.5 x 7.5 cm) Via Massey (1993). This is a comparison of SW UV fluorescence and visible light images. Dec 2022: I have decided to make this vertical format comparison photo a child photo. The new parent photo uses the Mindat interactive comparison tool with the same images. There are pros and cons with both methods of comparison. For the time being, I am keeping them both - with essentially the same text. May 2022: This is a new parent photo, posted to show the fluorescence. The previous parent image has been retained as a child photo, but I got rid of most of the old text because it was a muddle of information and misinformation. The dealer’s label says “Pectolite Hancockite Roeblingite or calcite”. I was never able to see much in the way of fluorescence on this specimen with my wimpy old tube SW source, but a couple of Franklin experts were able to confirm the pectolite, as well as prehnite, with a “death star” caliber UV lamp – right in the brightly lit lobby of the Franklin Mineral Museum. (My thanks to Steve M. and Paul S.) But they said nothing about any Roeblingite. Now that I have a new SW LED “flashlight” source, I can not only confirm, but also show , the pectolite (orange) and (minor) prehnite (violet-pink). I can also see why the dealer speculated that there might be roeblingite – there are patches of red fluorescence (mostly on another side but also a bit on the bottom of this photo). A sample of this material – still flourescing – was dunked in HCl, where it promptly fizzed away leaving a very small, platy, non-fluorescent, remnant. It is 95+% calcite – not roeblingite. (I may add a “caveat emptor” photo at some point.) There is also an area of weak blue-gray fluorescence at the bottom. It is much brighter under MW and it actually covers a good deal of the specimen. Under a scope in consists mostly of crumbly white spherules. A small sample of this material dumped into HCl fizzed vigorously for about a minute or two, but then left behind an inert “core” (about 50% of the sample) that just sat there. Under the scope, this core appears to consist of clumps of tiny, poorly-formed, crystals. The experts I consulted did not remark on this stuff – probably because the SW response is quite weak – even in a dark room, never mind in a brightly lit lobby. At this time, I have no idea what it is. (Had it all fizzed away, I might have suspected “mineral F of Dunn”.) There are also some other unidentified minerals on the specimen, one of which is discussed under a child photo. The hancockite listed on the dealer’s label can be seen in the upper left of the visible light image. There are additional thin layers of hancockite cross-cutting the specimen in several other places. The UV image was made using a small SW UV LED “flashlight” positioned about 25 cm from the specimen. At that distance, the fluorescence of the pectolite is still naked eye visible, but it is not very impressive compared to willemite, calcite and etc, etc, from Franklin. To see it glow as in the photo, the source has to be < 5 cm from the specimen – and in a dark room. The 25 cm distance used for photography (in order to illuminate most of the specimen at once), meant that a 20 sec exposure using ISO 800 and F7.1 was needed for each frame. ”

“Size 6.5 x 7.5 x 11 cm. (This face 6.5 x 7.5 cm) Via Massey (1993). This is a comparison of SW UV fluorescence and visible light images. Update Dec 2022: This is another new parent photo using the Mindat interactive comparison tool with the same images as before. (To see both images, click on the TN.) The previous "vertical" comparison is now a child photo. Both versions use the same text. May 2022: This is a new parent photo, posted to show the fluorescence. The previous parent image has been retained as a child photo, but I got rid of most of the old text because it was a muddle of information and misinformation. The dealer’s label says “Pectolite Hancockite Roeblingite or calcite”. I was never able to see much in the way of fluorescence on this specimen with my wimpy old tube SW source, but a couple of Franklin experts were able to confirm the pectolite, as well as prehnite, with a “death star” caliber UV lamp – right in the brightly lit lobby of the Franklin Mineral Museum. (My thanks to Steve M. and Paul S.) But they said nothing about any Roeblingite. Now that I have a new SW LED “flashlight” source, I can not only confirm, but also show , the pectolite (orange) and (minor) prehnite (violet-pink). I can also see why the dealer speculated that there might be roeblingite – there are patches of red fluorescence (mostly on another side but also a bit on the bottom of this photo). A sample of this material – still flourescing – was dunked in HCl, where it promptly fizzed away leaving a very small, platy, non-fluorescent, remnant. It is 95+% calcite – not roeblingite. (I may add a “caveat emptor” photo at some point.) There is also an area of weak blue-gray fluorescence at the bottom. It is much brighter under MW and it actually covers a good deal of the specimen. Under a scope in consists mostly of crumbly white spherules. A small sample of this material dumped into HCl fizzed vigorously for about a minute or two, but then left behind an inert “core” (about 50% of the sample) that just sat there. Under the scope, this core appears to consist of clumps of tiny, poorly-formed, crystals. The experts I consulted did not remark on this stuff – probably because the SW response is quite weak – even in a dark room, never mind in a brightly lit lobby. At this time, I have no idea what it is. (Had it all fizzed away, I might have suspected “mineral F of Dunn”.) There are also some other unidentified minerals on the specimen, one of which is discussed under a child photo. The hancockite listed on the dealer’s label can be seen in the upper left of the visible light image. There are additional thin layers of hancockite cross-cutting the specimen in several other places. The UV image was made using a small SW UV LED “flashlight” positioned about 25 cm from the specimen. At that distance, the fluorescence of the pectolite is still naked eye visible, but it is not very impressive compared to willemite, calcite and etc, etc, from Franklin. To see it glow as in the photo, the source has to be < 5 cm from the specimen – and in a dark room. The 25 cm distance used for photography (in order to illuminate most of the specimen at once), meant that a 20 sec exposure using ISO 800 and F7.1 was needed for each frame. ”

“Size 6.5 x 7.5 x 11 cm. (This face 6.5 x 7.5 cm) Via Massey (1993). This is a comparison of SW UV fluorescence and visible light images using the Mindat interactive comparison tool. It uses the same images as the parent image, so it may seem redundant. But both posts are needed in order for the tool to work The dealer’s label says “Pectolite Hancockite Roeblingite or calcite”. I was never able to see much in the way of fluorescence on this specimen with my wimpy old tube SW source, but a couple of Franklin experts were able to confirm the pectolite, as well as prehnite, with a “death star” caliber UV lamp – right in the brightly lit lobby of the Franklin Mineral Museum. (My thanks to Steve M. and Paul S.) But they said nothing about any Roeblingite. Now that I have a new SW LED “flashlight” source, I can not only confirm, but also show , the pectolite (orange) and (minor) prehnite (violet-pink). I can also see why the dealer speculated that there might be roeblingite – there are patches of red fluorescence (mostly on another side but also a bit on the bottom of this photo). A sample of this material – still flourescing – was dunked in HCl, where it promptly fizzed away leaving a very small, platy, non-fluorescent, remnant. It is 95+% calcite – not roeblingite. (I may add a “caveat emptor” photo at some point.) There is also an area of weak blue-gray fluorescence at the bottom. It is much brighter under MW and it actually covers a good deal of the specimen. Under a scope in consists mostly of crumbly white spherules. A small sample of this material dumped into HCl fizzed vigorously for about a minute or two, but then left behind an inert “core” (about 50% of the sample) that just sat there. Under the scope, this core appears to consist of clumps of tiny, poorly-formed, crystals. The experts I consulted did not remark on this stuff – probably because the SW response is quite weak – even in a dark room, never mind in a brightly lit lobby. At this time, I have no idea what it is. (Had it all fizzed away, I might have suspected “mineral F of Dunn”.) There are also some other unidentified minerals on the specimen, one of which is discussed under a child photo. The hancockite listed on the dealer’s label can be seen in the upper left of the visible light image. There are additional thin layers of hancockite cross-cutting the specimen in several other places. The UV image was made using a small SW UV LED “flashlight” positioned about 25 cm from the specimen. At that distance, the fluorescence of the pectolite is still naked eye visible, but it is not very impressive compared to willemite, calcite and etc, etc, from Franklin. To see it glow as in the photo, the source has to be < 5 cm from the specimen – and in a dark room. The 25 cm distance used for photography (in order to illuminate most of the specimen at once), meant that a 20 sec exposure using ISO 800 and F7.1 was needed for each frame. ”