Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

PhotosSpherocobaltite - Musonoi Mine, Kolwezi, Kolwezi District, Katanga Copper Crescent, Katanga, Democratic Republic of Congo

31st Jan 2013 15:37 UTCMario Pauwels

I posted this Spherocobaltite photo a week ago, but it is still not approved in my photogallery so far. Is there any reason?

Best regards,

Mario Pauwels

31st Jan 2013 15:44 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Several of our photo review experts are away in Tucson at the moment so it's a bit slower than normal, sorry!

31st Jan 2013 17:40 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Is the specimen analysed? Could it be a Co-rich calcite or dolomite?

(At least for near-end member CoCO3 I would expect a darker colour.)

31st Jan 2013 23:58 UTCMario Pauwels

Yes I know Jolyon, I already met a few of them here in Tucson during the last days.

Uwe, this specimen was in the personal collection of Gilbert Gauthier until he's dead. This specimen has still his original Gauthier catalogue number together with the specimen label, and the specimen was also analysed by himself.

Gilbert Gauthier was a absolute world authority for Congo minerals, so I see no reason to doubt his expertise.

Best regards,

Mario Pauwels

1st Feb 2013 09:47 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Thanks, Mario. Approved and updated with your info.

1st Feb 2013 11:56 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager

Hi all,

Mario, I am the one who must approve Katanga minerals but was in bed since last week with a very bad pneumonia.

Just picking a " normal " life up now.

Everybode knew Gilbert from shows etc .... but did you ever visited Gilbert at his home in Paris and see his collection ?

I am one of the privileged persons who did at several occasions. Gilbert did not collect minerals except from a few beryls, a huge bournonite from Herodsfood and a 8 cm almandine garnet from Kamiaba. AND THAT'S ALL. The rest was his stock.

Gilbert did not analyse specimens by himself because he didn't had the equipement to do so. Where he let it do was in Brussels with Mr. Deliens or at the Sorbonne in Paris. Just to be precise.

I'm sorry Mario but from my point of view, it is not spherocobaltite but rather, like Uwe suggest, a cobalt rich calcite/dolomite or like sometimes said " spherocobaltite included " calcite/dolomite. The real sphero is much darker as you can see in the gallery. VERY NICE SPECIMEN BTW.

I'm sure this does not help you but as personal friend of Gilbert for 30 years and as Mindat expert on Katanga, I think it's fair to let you know my taughts. No heartfeelings I hope.

Take care and best regards.

Paul.

1st Feb 2013 13:08 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager

Hi Mario,

I agree with Paul that the specimen is most likely a calcite or dolomite colored by cobalt and not rich enough in cobalt to be sphaerocobaltite. I worked with Gilbert here in the US and a few times in France, when I was there. We still have a manuscript lingering on Katanga. I remember in the early 1990s when Gilbert told me that his "sphaerocobaltites" were proven to be mostly dolomites or calcites. Subsequently, he was very restrictive in the use of the name. I will put up a photo, today of one of his analyzed specimens.

1st Feb 2013 16:11 UTCMario Pauwels

Paul... at the Musonoi locality page there are only two pictures of Spherocobaltite specimens; one is mine, who as a Gauthier collection number on the specimen and has also the refering Gauthier collection numbered label to for this piece.

The other specimen is yours Paul and you mention also in your discription that it was as a 'Ex Gilbert Gauthier collection' specimen, while now you are saying that he only had a few Beryls, one Bournonite and one Almandine in his collection...

So I asume your specimen is not numbered and has no Gauthier collection label, because this is getting very confusing.

QuoteI...'he was very restrictive in the use of the name sphaerocobaltite'. You could be right Van, but again I did not numbered and labeled this specimen, Gilbert Gauthier did! So he must have got a good reason to label this one as Spherocobaltite.

My specimen is in fact a Dolomite matrix covered by tiny platy Spherocobaltite crystals who creates a sort of rounded spheres. And I know that for the species the color is most of the time darker, but the color range for Spherocobaltite varies from pink to red into the more common magenta red.

And no hard feelings at all Paul, fortunately we have Mindat to discuss topics like this one...

Best regards,

Mario Pauwels

1st Feb 2013 18:21 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager

Hi Mario and Van,

Gilbert didn't label his specimens personally. He wrote the numbers from the previous labels and/or the numbers already on the specimen. I must have over the thousand fivehundred (1500 ) specimens with a Gauthier's label. Some have numbers and others dont. But if I look closely on the numbers, it seems that there is no system in his numbering, no constant returning serie or no structure and knowing Gilbert for over 30 years, that's most unusual for a man who could sometimes split a hair in 4 to be as accurate as possible. I helped Gilbert back in 1988 preparing his Tucson show for more than 2 weeks and never saw him (re)numbering a specimen. I think that Van can can confirm that.

Concerning my Sphero, yes it has a GG's label but no numbering because he found it himself a little time before he left Katanga for good.

I bought this in his room in 1988 because I was going thru his stock and all the specimens went thru my hands.

A good opportunity to see specimens and a good opportunity to be " in first hand ". In those weeks, I bought 5 flats of specimens and that sphero was is part of it, pure coincidence.

Concerning that specimen, you see the dark magenta colour of the sphero, contasting with the lighter cobaltoan calcite.

That's why I posted the comment. Nevertheless, the specimen you have, whatever the mineral is, is gorgeous.

I hope this helps.

Take care in sunny Tucson and best regards. Here its raining like a peeing cow.

Paul.

1st Feb 2013 18:36 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Caption rephrased.

"but the color range for Spherocobaltite varies from pink to ..."

I have yet to see an analysed pink spherocobaltite ...

1st Feb 2013 19:45 UTCMario Pauwels

Quote... 'I have yet to see an analysed pink spherocobaltite ...'

Uwe, I looked thru the Mindat Spherocobaltite page http://www.mindat.org/min-3726.html and by Physical Properties of Spherocobaltite is also literally written: Colour: Pink to red; brown, grey, velvet-black (surface alteraton) .

Best regards,

Mario Pauwels

1st Feb 2013 20:01 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager

From what I've been able to discover, spherocobaltite has been all too liberally attributed to merely pink cobaltoan calcites. The species description probably should not say pink, but red. There still might not be enough cobalt in a red specimen, but it should minimize the misuse of the name. I discovered that one of the reports of cobaltocalcite, at Mindat, was not mentioned in the reference cited. Additionally, there seem to be other localities for which no analyses exist to validate the name and where only pink specimens are known.

10th Mar 2013 22:28 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager

Dear Mario,

Because this is a very very fine specimen, no matter what species it is, I think that it needs to be characterized. My impression from the photo is that it could be a dolomite group mineral and not a calcite group mineral. For the moment it is listed in your user's gallery. Kaygeedee Minerals in Canada will do an EDS spectrum for only $10 and John Attard in the USA will do an x-ray for $40. With the two analyses: chemistry and structure, you should have a good answer.

Many collectors, including Gilbert, have/had labels with invalid names on them. I hope to catch up on my own labeling before I die. :) I was looking through a number of my own labels recently and found several that need to be up-dated.

Best Wishes, Van

11th Mar 2013 03:25 UTCJim Robison

It has always been my impression that true spherocobaltite is generally a very dark purple with hints of very dark red. Apparently the crystals are often rounded in appearance, clustered, very small, and may occasionally be an inclusion within a cobaltoan calcite or dolomite.

Be that as it may, I looked at the bibliography for spherocobaltite and was surprised to see that there was no mention of two very interesting articles from the Mineralogical Record focused on the questions being discussed here. My copies are packed at the moment, so can't read them again, but I recall a pretty detailed look at the diagrams for the spherocobaltite-cobaltoan calcite-cobaltoan dolomite series and lots of discussion on the issues.

Copied from the index to the following volume of the Min Record

Vol. 30, No. 4 July - August 1999

Cobalt Minerals of the Katanga Crescent, Congo 255-267

Gilbert Gauthier & Michel Deliens

Cobaltoan Calcites and Dolomites from Katanga

269-273

D.L. Douglass

Maybe somebody could look these up and let us know what they say.

Jim

11th Mar 2013 15:10 UTCRoger Van Dooren

Sorry, Mario; as an old friend of GG, I totally agree with Paul and Jim: GG had no numbered specimen from his collection

Regarding spherocobaltite from Katanga I only know the size, form and color of cristals shown namely in Mindat. Larger specimens should be considered as cobaltoan calcite or dolomite.

Roger

12th Mar 2013 09:25 UTCMario Pauwels

Quote from Roger Van Dooren....Larger specimens should be considered as cobaltoan calcite or dolomite.

I realy don't know why the size of a specimen would makes it Cobaltoan Calcite or Dolomite, instead of Spherocobaltite...

Best regards,

Mario Pauwels

12th Mar 2013 09:33 UTCMario Pauwels

Hi...

Since this discussion started, several different people offered my already EDS or X-ray for chemical and structural analyses.

Because the backside of the specimen is Dolomite and not crystallised with any of the rounded spheres, you must understand that I am not realy "looking foreward" to remove a rice grain sized part of the spheres for analyses in front of the specimen... because that would devastate this specimen completely!

Just like the other Belgians (Paul and Roger) who have posted a reply on this topic, I also knew Gilbert for more than 20 years. The label that I have is a Gauthier collection label for specimen no.1430/15, and is not one or other label that Gilbert, like he usualy did, quickly would have wrote (with specimen no.1430/15 on it), for one of his commercial specimens that was sold at a show.

Someone who is authorized should also make some changes within the Mindat Spherocobaltite page by the Physical Properties of Spherocobaltite. On that page is literally written that the color for Spherocobaltite varies from pink to red; brown, grey, velvet-black (surface alteraton).

Because when my specimen who has a deep and strong fuchsia color is already so controversial, why should someones else his "pink" Spherocobaltite could ever be unquestioned here on Mindat ???

Best regards,

Mario Pauwels

12th Mar 2013 15:27 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager

Dear Mario,

I understand your concern about the beauty of the specimen. I hope there is an available place where a tiny grain may be removed. The same grain might be suitable for both XRD and EDS and thus save the mayhem. Thank you for the suggested change to the color description. The color change was already edited when I got to the page, so I filled out the data that had yet to be added.

12th Mar 2013 16:05 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Jim: thanks, refs. added.

12th Mar 2013 21:09 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager

Hi all,

Mario, its a pity I was not prepared to this topic otherwise I would have made pictures of GG labels with a number.

How many you want of them 50, 100? I have perhaps even more than that but all without a patern or structure.

I could let explode your mailbox in a few minutes.

Many of the labels with numbers are specimens with numbers on it and some times accompanied by older labels.

GG probably did that to avoid mixing up specimens and labels. With a stock like he had, this could happen easily.

He also dealth with consignments from other collectors and/or dealers. And the number 1430/15 is perhaps from dealer 1430, whoever he may be, specimen 15 ( just a wild guess ). These specimens where mostly pieces where the prices where to high for GG to buy them, so he took them on consignment and was paid a percentage when sold. Dont forget the label sneakers. In the late 90's they where frequent on shows, and probably even today. They took the older labels to provide their specimens with an old label to raise the price. Some where specialised in that practice. As everybody knows, GG let you search in his flats freely. It was easy to sneak a label. So he mentionned the number on his label.

Never sneaked a label, I estimated the man more than the minerals he could provide me with.

The last 10 years of his rich life, he came to diner 2 to 3 times a year. As I am a hobby cook, he appriciated my " cuisine " and wine cellar. I never questionned him but he told me a lot, freely, as a friend.

Knowing him from behind his booth was easy, just follow his laugh and/or the fairly priced minerals. You would meet a friendly, open man with a lot of experience, an open heart and easy contact. Probaby thousands of people knew Gilbert thru his shows but knowing him around a good meal, was, I can assure you, another experience and had another dimension.

We will probably never know what's the real story behind your specimen as, unfortunately, GG left us with his secrets.

Since I took on my shoulders to clean up the Katanga pages, last year, there where more that 60 spherocobaltite pictures.

Today, there are 26 left so if you say that other pale Katanga spherocobaltites are not questionned and yours is, sorry, but this is not true, or I am getting you wrong. I dont want to bite in your butt but dont want to be bitten either.;-) If you knew how many hours and days I spent sending complaints trying to clean up the misslabelings and others, you would be surprised.

Some of the collectors I send a complain to, where happy to receive a mail, telling them that the specimen " could be " something else. Some promised me to do some analysis on the specimen and let me know what the result was. Still waiting.....Meanwhile, for avoiding the contamination of the database, they moved the pics in the cobaltoan galleries.

To be honest, if I should have to approve your picture, I would have put it in " questionnable " .

Do you come to the Gent show this sunday. If so, I propose you to take the specimen with the label with you. I could take a look and tell you my taughts, visually. And Mario, I really wish your specimen is spherocobaltite. It would be the best ever seen and would be honoured to have kept it in my hands for a few minutes. But spherocobaltite is nearly always associated with cobaltoan calcite/dolomite and I have never seen isolated floaters. I've seen a lot of them but I did not seen ALL the specimens recovered.

I hope this helps and see you perhaps on sunday. I'll bring you the most vivid magenta/fushia cobaltoan calcite you have ever seen, with " only " 1,3 % of cobalt in his structure. http://www.mindat.org/photo-272306.html. I can assure you that the colour is even more intense than the picture shows.

No heartfeelings I hope.

Take care and best regards.

Paul.

13th Mar 2013 10:28 UTCMario Pauwels

Hello Paul,

It doesn't matter to me if you have 50 or 100 or even more numbered Gauthier labels and that you, like you pretend, could let explode my mailbox .... This has nothing to do with my specimen in particular and proves also nothing about any of Gauthier's specimens. And you should also noticed before that I am never impressed by large quantity's of any kind!

It also doesn't matter to me if there is, according to you, not realy a patern or structure in the way that Gauthier numbered his labels. What proves this? Maybe you also don't like the way that I am numbering my own specimens and labels, and you want to use this against me after my dead as a prove that I never had a personal collection;-)...While I just think that I am very well organised and punctual in everything I do.

I am very happy for you that you enjoyed several times a year a good meal and a few bottles of good wine together with Gilbert. For you this is truly a nice souvenir to a good friend and there is nothing wrong with it. But again, what do you want to prove with bringing this up in a discussion like this?

You even try to pretend that maybe the dealer took or stole a old Gauthier collection label to provide it with his own specimen to raise the price of the specimen... Paul, I bought this specimen from Bill Larson, I am sure that Bill will not be very happy with what you here dare to pretend...

You also wrote in a earlier message that my Spherocobaltite could not be from the Gauthier collection because he never owned a Spherocobaltite in his collection, while you saying literally in your picture gallery that your Spherocobaltite is a ex Gauthier collection specimen... Very contradictory isn't it!

I could go on like this to quote you on many of your comments Paul, but is has no sense because I believe your intentions are good. But I also think that you are doing to much your best to prove yourself as a Congo or better as a Gauthier "expert". You also try to involve to many "off topic" arguments that have nothing to do with the identification or with the specimen itself, and what makes this discussion even more complicated then it already is.

So I have NO problem at all with the discussion itself that this is a Spherocobaltie or not. But a discussion like this one turned out now is endless. So forgive me that this is probably my last reply in this discussion, and I hope you also will let it rest. And no hard feelings Paul, but it is just that I have to prove things over and over again, in never ending discussions.

Best regards, and see you maybe in Gent,

Mario Pauwels

15th Mar 2013 09:14 UTCMario Pauwels

Hi,

Because this "Spherocobaltite" specimen caused so much controversy, I thought is was better to remove it from the Spherocobaltite page, and place it into the "Cobaltoan Dolomite" mineral page.

Because I am punctual to, I don't want to contribute any questioned or controversial pictures to this site. Another option was a EDS and X-ray for chemical and structural analyses, but because the backside is not crystallised with any of the rounded spheres, I had to remove for analyses a rice grain sized part of the spheres on the front side of the specimen. That would devastate this specimen completely, and this was definately not an option for me.

Of course I will keep the "Spherocobaltite" collection labels who came with the specimen, for the next generations of collectors.

I can certainly live with the changes, I hope you to. And no matter what speciës is, I will always love the specimen as it is.

Best regards,

Mario Pauwels

15th Mar 2013 10:58 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

It's important to remember that regardless of the ratio of Co:Ca (which is really not important to my mind), it's a truly beautiful and impressive specimen!

Thank you for contributing the photo.

16th Mar 2013 09:44 UTCMario Pauwels

Its a pleasure for me to contribute photo's of good specimens to the Mindat site Jolyon.

All regular Mindat visitors love minerals, otherwise we would not spend so much time here on this site. And most of us have our own private collection. But I think often, that private collections are kept to much private. But why? To me it is the easyest way to share my specimens with others, because in this big world only very few collectors would make it to my home to see my collection in person. So why not share decent pictures of our specimens?

Best regards,

Mario Pauwels

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 19, 2024 01:35:53

Go to top of page