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

Generalwhat is a thumbnail / miniature / cabinet?

10th Nov 2014 02:43 UTCDon Windeler

At the risk of kicking off a holy war, I have a seemingly innocent question: is there an “official” designation for what constitutes thumbnail, miniature, and cabinet size specimens? I suspect there are formal terms for how these are specified in show competitions, but if so are these approximately consistent between venues? Or is there play that allows someone to reasonably pick and choose?

The cynical answer is “whatever the dealer thinks they can get away with,” but I’d like to see a reasonably formal definition so it was possible to call BS on those trying to stretch the labels. I’ll admit it gets tougher when you start throwing in “small” and “large” as qualifiers, as these open the doors for all sorts of malarkey.

This topic in response to what seems like downward creep in the definitional limits. I won’t muddy the waters (yet) with my own personal definitions, but I was incited to pose the question by a specimen available through a thoroughly respectable dealer called “small cabinet” with a maximum dimension of 4.2cm. (The other two are 3.x and 2.x.) To me, “cabinet” has no business being near this specimen -- it is as miniature as you can get. Makes me think of some very small display cabinets.

Pieces with a funky aspect ratio are tougher, of course; I would have a lot more leeway for a specimen that had the same measurements for the lower two but was stretched out in the maximum dimension.

At a minimum, I’d love to see dealers articulate how they classify a given specimen. I think it would be enlightening and a useful means of comparison -- once someone draws a line in the sand, it becomes easier to compare apples to apples. Opinions appreciated.

Cheers,

D.

10th Nov 2014 03:57 UTCBOB HARMAN

DON, As a collector with long time experience and many show displays, but no other formal training, I would bet that there are NO formal definitions of size. Just terms for various specimen sizes developed informally over time by both the dealers and collectors. The informal definitions make for approximate specimen size descriptions with modifiers. These range downward from "museum size" thru large cabinet, cabinet, and small cabinet size to miniature size and on downward thru toenail to large thumbnail, thumbnail, finally on to micros. Like I said, I would really be surprised if other Mindaters show evidence of truly formal specimen size definitions.

So, if I am right, I certainly think there will often be some overlap at the measured edges of each of the described sizes. Or, in other words, a large miniature might overlap with some described small cabinet specimens. This is to be expected and really does not bother me. However as you say, describing a straightforward "miniature" as a "small cabinet" specimen probably stretches the informal definitions and may be just a dealer ploy to increase the specimens' attractiveness and price.

I am not so sure about a "downward creep" in sizing specimens, but you may be on to something. Perhaps certain dealers are (consciously or unconsciously) ROUTINELY stretching the informal specimen sizes a bit to enhance descriptions and increase prices. Who knows?? For me, the best defense to all this is to have my own mental image of size and use it by envisioning the specimen in the display cabinet and how much I might be willing to pay to own the example.

BTW is a cabinet size calcite or rhodochrosite specimen the same as a cabinet size rutile or dioptase? Is a cabinet size quartz or amazonite/smoky quartz example the same as a cabinet size anatase or erythrite? Do the same informal sizes of examples cross all the various mineral species? CHEERS…….BOB

10th Nov 2014 03:59 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager

Hi

I don't see the problem.

If the dimensions are clearly stated then the interpretation as to thumbnail, cabinet etc is moot. It's what you determine each size to be.

Having said that I would classify a thumbnail as one that fits into one of those 1" perky boxes. A toenail fits in a 2" box.

Thereafter - I would say 2" to 3" is a miniature. 3" to 6" is a cabinet and larger than that just large cabinet to museum size.

To me a small cabinet would be around the 21/2 to 4" mark.

Many dealers do explain their sizes in their "about" or "order info" pages.

Cheers

Keith

10th Nov 2014 04:52 UTCDavid Garske

My usage of the size terms are:

Micro (whether or not it would make a good micromount)-under 1 cm,

Thumbnail-if it would fit into a 2.5 cm box.

Miniature-2.5 to 5 cm box

Small Cabinet-5-10 cm,

Cabinet-1 dimension is at least 10 cm.

I consider Toenails as being redundant.

Dave

10th Nov 2014 04:54 UTCDon Windeler

Keith:

I'm totally in agreement that putting the actual measurements in the description is a key point, but my gripe is that I see a summary description of a piece with "small cabinet" (or insert label here) and click through to see that the actual size has no connection to my reality. Yes, I can choose not to patronize those companies, but it would be nice if there was a landing place for a generally agreed upon definition.

Bob, the relativism for a given species is an interesting angle. I'd certainly have different mental expectations for a 2cm quartz than a 2cm pseudoittybittyschmutzite. In general, though, I think I'd label the specimen on the basis of the full piece. If it was a chunky specimen with smudges of red arrow material, I'd still label it on the basis of the overall matrix. One could argue whether that encourages bad trimming, of course...

Cheers,

D.

10th Nov 2014 05:47 UTCDouglas Merson 🌟 Expert

Don,

In the US, if you are showing competitively, the following apply. The cube will be oriented to the front of the display.

cabinet must fit in a 5 inch cube

miniature must fit in a 2 inch cube

thumbnail must fit in a 1 inch cube

Micromounts must fit in a 1 x 1.5 x 1 inch cube and require magnification.

There is an unlimited class which has no size limit and can have a mix of sizes.

These are from the rules of the American Federation of Mineralogical Societies and only apply to competitive exhibits being judged by their rules.

Doug

10th Nov 2014 14:14 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert

I too largely agree with both David and Douglas, though I do prefer the description of micromount provided by Doug, and do differ a bit on "cabinet" size (just over two inches is still a bit small for me to consider it a cabinet size specimen, even for a nice single xtl, but I can at least live with that by further defining any specific piece as a "small cabinet"). Agree with david that "toenail" is redundant and don't see it as a useful term, and as for "museum" being used as a size description. . . sounds like puffery to me, I've always just used "large cabinet".

Not sure there really has been much discrepancy within the collectors community over this generally agreeable format, but as far as dealers go, you will always see those who tend to "put a thumb on the scale" and describe their wares in a less than honest manner.

MRH

10th Nov 2014 14:40 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

The trouble I have found with size is that it all depends on how you measure it. Many dealers ( if not most) use the longest possible measurement as the starting point which often results in measurements that do not represent the volume of the sample. Because of this (unless an error was made) I have found that specimens are usually smaller than one would expect using the volume method (LXWXH) . As long as you keep this in mind you will usually not have any unpleasant surprises.

10th Nov 2014 15:23 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert

Reiner brings up a good point, which I would like to expand upon.

There are also dealers who will provide a photograph of the display side of a specimen, but will still list it by it's longest dimension first even though that is not the side or dimension that is represented in the image. That is where I would most certainly draw the line as being purely dishonest and I have seen it happening often enough (for shame).

When I see an image of a specimen I expect there to be some consistency in the manner which dimensions are listed if they can't be bothered to include H(height) W(width) and D (depth) for those figures. Displayed horizonally, W x H x D (unseen), Vertically displayed, H x W x D (unseen), the longest dimension visible in the primary photo should always listed first, the unseen dimension should always be last. I've noted that many european dealers do not seem to follow any format at all, some even tend to list the most critical (longest) dimension last, some do not, and many also tend to forgo the use of centimeters in favor of millimeters (looks bigger that way?). Something to keep an eye out for.

MRH

10th Nov 2014 16:47 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Thanks Doug for posting the official definitions. The trouble with fitting in a box of some dimension means that tiny specimens will fit. Today I saw a boleite cube less than a cm on edge called a thumbnail! Yes it fits in a thumbnail box over 2,5 times larger, but it would look odd displayed in a case with honest thumbnails. Similarly a 3 cm toenail is lost in a 5 cm box, but it won't fit in a thumbnail box, so it is a "miniature" and looks weird in a case of honest miniatures. If you think there's some aesthetic synergy with same sized specimens then you want them the same size and not some that are more than 100% different in size.

10th Nov 2014 17:32 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert

Having displayed in regional, national, and TGMS show competitions and been a judge for the California Federation of Mineralogical Societies (CFMS) for several years and been involved in mineral judging for the TGMS Show for over fifteen years, the formal definitions for the size categories are:

Thumbnail: Must fit into a 1" cube.

Miniature: Must fin into a 2" cube.

Small Cabinet: Must fit into a 5" cube.

Cabinet: Too large to fit in a 5" cube.

In addition: at the TGMS show:

Toenail: Must fit into a 1.5" cube.

The cubes must be able to be placed over the specimen as displayed. A cube face need not be parallel to the case front. The specimens cannot be "sunk" into the base upon which it is displayed.

A cube face has a diagonal dimension ~1.4 x the cube edge dimension.

A cube has a diagonal dimension ~1.7 x the cube edge dimension.

Thus a properly oriented specimen can be longer than a cube edge and still fit into the cube.

In my experience, many dealers follow these definition fairly closely. But it is up to the buyer to determine appropriateness for competitive size category. I have bought many specimens to trim down to meet a size category (and generally improve the aesthetics as well).

Simply measuring the longest dimension will not necessarily determine the size category. I have had T/N of the appropriate shape measure 1.7" long and still fit in a 1" cube as displayed!

Hope this helps.

Ron

10th Nov 2014 17:46 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Thanks Ron, so toenails are official!

Your point about diagonals is well taken. These days I just want a specimen that measures at least 6 cm in some direction.

10th Nov 2014 17:58 UTCTom Tucker

I've got a standard "Perky Box" here and the interior dimensions are 1 1/4 by 1 1/4 by 1, above the styrofoam. So a specimen could be too large for "thumbnail", but still fit in the common small box.

10th Nov 2014 18:24 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert

Yes, but competition display is the only reason "toenail" was created and exists as a size. A "tip of the hat" category for those great specimens which are small but can't quite squeeze into a "dress", the standard sized perky box. XD

It may be "official" under contest rules, but I fail to see how it is not still altogether redundant outside that particular venue. So, as far as I'm concerned, if you say you have a "toenail", it had best be a killer, competition quality specimen or you're just blowing smoke. To each their own.

MRH

10th Nov 2014 18:29 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert

Tom,

That is correct! The perky box allows for room around a legal T/N. In fact, many toenail minerals will fit in a Perky Box. The Perky box has been a de facto TN definition for a long time, but it is not the definition for competitive displays.

Rob, Mark,

Yes, toenail is an official size at TGMS show. The AFMS (American Federation of Mineralogical Societies) still does not recognize the T/O size range, but it should, as there is to big a gap between TN (thumbnail) and MN (miniature), i.e., 8x volume.

Ron

11th Nov 2014 01:11 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager

Hi

Having never exhibited competitively

I had a look at the AFM rules of competition and I am glad I don't compete.

I note the following:

"Rule 4.1 A cabinet mineral is defined as any mineral specimen displayed so that it will fit into a five inch

cube. See Rule 2.11.

Rule 4.2 No more than five (5) miniature specimens may be included. "

and of course "Rule 5.1 A miniature mineral is defined as any mineral specimen displayed so that it will fit into a two inch

cube."

So if you have a case of cabinet specimens you can of course include miniatures but no thumbnails as they would be considered "out of class"

"Rule 5.1 A miniature mineral is defined as any mineral specimen displayed so that it will fit into a two inch

cube. See Rule 2.11.

Rule 5.2 No more than five (5) thumbnail specimens may be included."

So again a miniature display can include thumbnails - but no more than 5.

I can see the legal minds at work here !!

I wonder if the judges ever actually place a cube over a specimen to see if it fits? I could imagine the uproar if such action caused damage to a specimen, particularly if it was a fine needle like specimen of say Natrolite or mesolite, or delicate tourmaline.

More legal work here too !!

If a specimen is displayed on/ attached to a base - that may also affect the placing of a cube.

Ron indicates that "The cubes must be able to be placed over the specimen as displayed. A cube face need not be parallel to the case front. The specimens cannot be "sunk" into the base upon which it is displayed."

Does that then mean that any cabinet specimen that is displayed on one of those acrilic bases cannot be higher than 5" as displayed including the 1" base? ie a 5" tall specimen set in a 1" base would be around 51/2" tall so that 5" box placed over it wouldn't fit !!!

Then of course I saw a few other rules of the AFM

Group names (ie tourmaline, garnet are unacceptable and a specific species must be identified). Now I would doubt very much if all tourmalines could be identified specifically as to species.

I note too that the rules are very specific as to labelling and correct names:... yet the rules themselves refer to such minerals as.Fluoapatite (???); Fluoraphohyllite ?? and Cuproadamhite ??

I know that I'm just glad I don't compete. I would hate to try and trim a specimen so as to "make it fit" a particular size or restrict myself to collecting a particular size.

I know rules are needed for competition but I think that those rules coudl be improved and simplified somewhat.

Cheers from a non-competitor.

Keith

11th Nov 2014 04:20 UTCDouglas Merson 🌟 Expert

I have competed a couple of times and always opted for the BU class as it gives the most flexibility for specimen size.

11th Nov 2014 09:19 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Most shows that have competitive displays also allow you to display cases without being entered into the competition. So there is no excuse to not put in a display.

11th Nov 2014 19:35 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert

Keith,

You should check that rule book again. Minerals to big for a 2" inch cube and that can fit into a 5" cube are called "Small Cabinet" specimens. The definition of a "Cabinet" specimen is that it is too large for a 5" cube. I think that you meant "small cabinet" where you stated "cabinet".

There can be a misinterpretation regarding the orientation of a cube face when placed over a specimen. A face must be parallel to the "display surface" which can be the acrylic base it rests upon or the riser surface that the specimen rest on. There is no rule requiring a cube face being parallel to the front of a display case.

Ron

12th Nov 2014 05:10 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager

Hi Ron

The following is taken straight from the rules:

4.0 SUBDIVISION BC: CABINET MINERALS

Please read all of Division B Rules.

RULES FOR SUBDIVISION BC

Rule 4.1 A cabinet mineral is defined as any mineral specimen displayed so that it will fit into a five inch

cube. See Rule 2.11.

Rule 4.2 No more than five (5) miniature specimens may be included. See Rule 2.11. Thumbnail

specimens shall be considered OUT-OF-CLASS. See Rule 6.1.

Rule 4.3 All cabinet mineral classes shall have a maximum of thirty-five (35) and a minimum of twenty

(20) specimens.

Clearly states a cabinet fits insid a 5" cube

Looks like the judges may be misreading the rules .. Sorry Ron in advance

Cheers

12th Nov 2014 18:26 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert

Keith,

On further research, the AFMS redefined all of the sizes sometime before 2003! The old "Small Cabinet" (Class BS) is the new "Cabinet" (Class BC), the old "Miniature" (Class BM) is the new "Miniature" (Class BS) and the "Micromount" Class has pre-empted the Class BM which used to be the class designation for "miniatures".

I can assure you that the TGMS competition size rules are as I have stated in my earlier post!

Ron

12th Nov 2014 20:07 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

Keith

I was asked years ago to help judge minerals at Gemborees etc. I agreed but complained in writing to AFLACA about nonsensical rules like not allowing group names etc. I got banned from judging for being unprofessional! Its all too nit-picky!

12th Nov 2014 21:07 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

I think the only thing worse then entering a mineral competition would be judging one LOL. Nice try Ralph LOL

12th Nov 2014 22:37 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager

Hi Ron

I guess we have to disagree.

I stand by my comments - the AFMS rules on their website clearly state what I have said.

If the AFMS changed their rules before 2003 then I guess it's time they updated their website!

I cannot comment on the TGMS rules as those rules do not seem to be located on their website. Guess that makes it difficult for competitors!!

If there are different rules for different competitions then all the more for confusion on sizing as raised in the initial post.

If I ever make it to Tucson, I would love to compete but what rules?

Anyway, as raised in the initial post, size description is a matter of opinion and provided the actual dimensions are listed then it doesn't matter how the specimen is described.

Cheers

Keith

13th Nov 2014 00:36 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

This whole discussion makes me sad. Why do we need such rules? Why not just put our minerals on display for the love of it and ban competitions.

13th Nov 2014 01:50 UTCturtledove thrushe

Jolyon & Katya Ralph Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This whole discussion makes me sad. Why do we need

> such rules? Why not just put our minerals on

> display for the love of it and ban competitions.

Exactly and well said. As a collector with a more limited budget I cannot possibly compete with collectors who can spend thousands or tens of thousands on a Norilsk miniature Sperrylite specimen. After all it should just be about what we value a good piece to be and not to compare our collections with others unless we have an unlimited budget.

While my collection may not consist of all museum pieces I am not embarrassed to display it and even though it may not compare to museums who can allocate tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands I am proud to have seen it grow recently and over the years.

Besides how can a competition be waged or even considered when the majority of collectors have a limited budget. What happens when a upper-class collector comes in and competes with his expensive minerals.

13th Nov 2014 01:58 UTCDoug Daniels

"What happens when a upper-class collector comes in and competes with his expensive minerals. "

Usually, he(she) wins that competition. The specimens can then be sold to others as competition-winning specimens, thereby increasing the price by a few cents.

13th Nov 2014 03:57 UTCRock Currier Expert

A competitive nature is the nature of humans. Competitions have and will be created for every imagined human endeavor. Sometimes they do seem ridiculous however. But if people want to compete with each other they will. I think I entered a mineral completion a couple of times but quickly determined that they were ridiculous. Not only did you have to conform to size restrictions but you had to worry about lint or fabric creases causing point deductions and it was often on such seemingly trivial considerations that caused winning or loosing in a particular category. The labeling of the specimens in the competitions were also scrutinized. One competitor, a Carl Stentz actually hired Dick Bideaux to create his labels to insure that there were no deductions for labeling. The locality strings were held to the absolute minimum on the theory that there would be less chance of errors. That combined that sometimes the judges knew less about the specimens they were judging than the exhibitors. But the people exhibiting wanted the ribbons or trophy that marked a successful competition. I think it will always be thus for many people.

13th Nov 2014 04:01 UTCDouglas Merson 🌟 Expert

The last time I displayed competitively was in 2001 at the Northwest Federation show. I am not rich, one does not get that way spending 21 years as enlisted in the US Navy. Much to my surprise I won the minerals trophy and best overall competitive display. As I was packing up at the end of the show, the young teenager next to who had finished second said "Next year I will spend enough money to beat you" I have never displayed competitively since nor will I ever again. I do show at our local club show.

Per AFMS website, just checked now, the rules were last updated 23 March 2014.

13th Nov 2014 04:03 UTCDoug Daniels

And, the thread again deviates. From size definition to competition rules and such....and, I'm as guilty as the rest. Ain't it all fun?

13th Nov 2014 06:41 UTCDon Windeler

Well, I said I was a little nervous about holy wars at the thread's inception.

The original question can be boiled down to, "What's appropriate for a dealer to label a given specimen?" Competitions have to be specific -- at least within their jurisdiction -- so the rules therein provide an obvious starting point. Of course, different groups will have different rules.

I can see (and sorta suspected) that there's not necessarily a cut-and-dried definition, especially when it comes to small cab vs. cab. I still wholeheartedly think that the copper specimen I was looking at with a 4.2cm maximum dimension has no justification for being called a small cabinet, since it could get spun around in a miniature cube with room to spare.

(Ironically, using Ron's classes above I actually could call "BS" on this piece...)

I do think it's fair to ask dealers to specify their labeling criteria -- at a minimum, it gives some comparative insight into their marketing. Yes, I'll still use the actual measurements, but when the thumbnail picture only has the text label, it annoys me to click through and see dimensions that are well below what I'd expect.

Cheers,

D.

13th Nov 2014 18:29 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert

Keith,

I think that you misunderstood my last message. The rule change by AFMS before 2003 redefined the sizes that I stated in my first message to the latest definitions on the AFMS web site, i.e., what is now a "cabinet" specimen used to be a "small cabinet" specimen.

The dealer size designations came about many years ago from buyers who were competitors. As far as big budget competitors there were and will always be such people. But I remember on individual who won trophies with limit of under $100 per specimen. I have won many regional trophies and two national trophies and I am NOT wealthy.

In regard to judging, the rules are to make a fair playing field and everyone is subject to rules. I have seen exhibits where the price of the specimens did not win the trophy because either the rules were not followed or were stretched. There are life lessons in that. I also have found that as a judge, I learned more about minerals than I did as a competitor, particular from the exhibitors who did know more than me about their exhibited specimens.

I still enjoy judging at the TGMS show for the interaction and fellowship of the people involved as well as the continued learning experience.

Ron

24th Nov 2014 19:18 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert

Keith,

The TGMS competition rules and entry form can be obtained from the TGMS Competition Chairman, Les Presmyk. If you would like his email address, please PM me and I will give it to you (also for anyone else interested in competing at the TGMS show).

Ron

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: May 13, 2024 10:36:55

Go to top of page