Hi Kevin,

I'm sure that we've both lauded the MO hemi after calcite here before but I don't want to miss any opportunity (no particular prodding needed!) to fawn over that particular piece--it is indeed my favorite mineral specimen of any kind. I've met perhaps a half dozen others that have nodded in agreement when discussing this particular piece.

By the way, the piece measures 54cm across (!!!) and was entered into the collection on February 3, 1897. I made a trip to Pittsburgh from Grand Rapids, MI with the sole purpose of seeing this piece in person (about 420 miles one way!).

We appreciate everyone's criticisms, truly, there will always be a need to make improvements on labeling and to provide new and updated information about the pieces in collections, including their social & technological relevance - but the money or people-power to make it happen is not always there, or to be able to direct money and time specifically for labeling instead of new specimens, updated lighting, other collection needs is difficult... QR codes are just one solution to our labeling problem, and I agree including one to cover each case is a good approach. We're actively trying to make improvements and labeling is at the top of the list. Branko, despite your aggressive and combative comments, we appreciate your insights into the Lavrion case and we do want to make sure it is accurately labeled and depicted. But to say that wood was never used, or that smithsonite cannot be a species that forms casts in the flooded mines, is just not at all realistic. We'll be sure to make note of your thoughts on the possible locality for it in the catalog – it's an old piece from the Jefferis collection, so we have no reason to doubt it's a cast from timber, rather than a very large gypsum crystal. And yes, about the barite, it's surely not the star of the exhibit, but does have nicely formed sheaves with Fe-oxide stained/included tips. We'd be happy to exhibit any loaned specimens, since it sounds like you have access to much better examples. 

-Travis

Wonderful information, Branko. I do not doubt your expertise on the region. Thank you for the photos and insights that put the initial comments into better context. I then agree, if the Zn is low, it is rather thick to be a post-mining cast of only smithsonite, and after seeing your photos I am more convinced the core was likely gypsum. I further agree, if it was wood, it was definitely not any kind of support. We will add this to the list of needed label fixes. I will post a photo down the tube tomorrow and perhaps some symmetry will be obvious, but from what I remember, the hole is roughly cylindrical.

And thank you for offering the upgraded specimen loan! It's a beautiful piece. I'll message tomorrow.