Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryGeologic Time
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsClubs & OrganizationsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice SettingsThe Mineral Quiz
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesSearch by ColorNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryPhotography
╳Discussions
💬 Home🔎 Search📅 LatestGroups
EducationOpen discussion area.Fakes & FraudsOpen discussion area.Field CollectingOpen discussion area.FossilsOpen discussion area.Gems and GemologyOpen discussion area.GeneralOpen discussion area.How to ContributeOpen discussion area.Identity HelpOpen discussion area.Improving Mindat.orgOpen discussion area.LocalitiesOpen discussion area.Lost and Stolen SpecimensOpen discussion area.MarketplaceOpen discussion area.MeteoritesOpen discussion area.Mindat ProductsOpen discussion area.Mineral ExchangesOpen discussion area.Mineral PhotographyOpen discussion area.Mineral ShowsOpen discussion area.Mineralogical ClassificationOpen discussion area.Mineralogy CourseOpen discussion area.MineralsOpen discussion area.Minerals and MuseumsOpen discussion area.PhotosOpen discussion area.Techniques for CollectorsOpen discussion area.The Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryOpen discussion area.UV MineralsOpen discussion area.Recent Images in Discussions
GeneralWhat constitutes a lo, midrange and hi end specimen valuation?
4th Dec 2014 21:23 UTCBob Harman
One dealer talked of lo, midrange, and hi end specimens, mentioning rather specific $$$ price ranges. Without mentioning his $ figures, in part, they were not what I envision lo, midrange and hi end values to be. Clearly examples in the many thousands of dollars are the hi end examples and $10 examples are at the lo end of the price spectrum, but what are your thoughts of the vast majority of collector minerals in-between these figures. And clearly this is not so simple as a calcite or quartz collector might have different hi end/lo end price ranges from a gold or cabinet size tourmaline collector, but anyway give it a shot; what are your thoughts?
Is there any consensus or is there a lack of consensus as to where today's vast majority of mineral specimens fall in the spectrum of lo, midrange or hi end of the $$$ spectrum.
After I get some responses, I will give that (unnamed) dealer's $$$ figures. They might surprise some of you! CHEERS…….BOB
4th Dec 2014 22:12 UTCGary Weinstein
In my opinion, though we must allow for some overlap, a low end is single to double digits (i.e.) $1.00 to somewhere less than $99.00. A mid-range would be higher double digits to triple digits and High end = 4, 5 and 6 digits. This is, of course, subject to personal beliefs and wallets.
Best,
Gary
4th Dec 2014 22:20 UTCturtledove thrushe
I would only pay more than $100 for a very few minerals such as Sperrylite , Kongsberg native silver , and some other rare or unique minerals. That being said I would never pay more than $1000.
I also don't agree with Gary Weinstein's assessment of what a mid-range specimen pricing is. The vast majority of collectors are only prepared to spend up to $50-100 per specimen and that is rightfully considered low-mid end specimens. That being said high-end specimens can be acquired under $100 but it is a difficult bargain to find and also rare/uncommon.
4th Dec 2014 22:23 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
A mid-range specimen is the one you can usually afford
A high-end specimen is the one you can't.
That is the only real definition, and your own values determine your own criteria for low/mid/high.
I know some people who would class anything worth less than about $100,000 as a low or mid-range specimen
4th Dec 2014 22:35 UTCBecky Coulson 🌟 Expert
Low-end specimens are the ones I bought for a lot less than you did,
Mid-range are the ones I want but wait to find at low-end prices,
High-end minerals are the ones I admire in museums.
Bob - I enjoy this type of thread, and especially when the dealers answer...it usually makes me feel rich.
4th Dec 2014 23:37 UTCChris Stefano Expert
If we treat it simply as an economic question, as the author of the aforementioned Minrec article seemed to be looking at it and say that low and mid-range value specimens have undergone little or no price appreciation over the last decade or so and that high-end specimens have experienced significant appreciation in the same time period, than I would say the high end starts in the low hundreds of dollars and goes up from there for small specimens (say TNs and miniatures), and in the high hundreds to low thousands of dallars on up for cabinet sized specimens. I say this based on my own observations of which specimens in my personal collection seem to have gained the most value over the last 10 years or so.
4th Dec 2014 23:37 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert
Either it's a specimen on the lo end of what you'd generally acquire or on the high end of what you'd generally be willing to spend on a specimen. Everything else within your financial "comfort zone", is a mid-range specimen. My pricing is different that yours, or his, or hers, or theirs, often enough by many, many, degrees.
So yes it's a indefinite definition, or no way to actually define what these mean except for yourself.
MRH
5th Dec 2014 00:13 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
5th Dec 2014 00:21 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
5th Dec 2014 00:52 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.
All things are relative in this hobby. I have crumbs that cost me 4 figures and large, beautiful specimens that cost me less than $100. Whatever floats your boat!!!
5th Dec 2014 01:10 UTCturtledove thrushe
5th Dec 2014 02:44 UTCRobert Rothenberg
They would be wrong!!!
"A high-end micromount might cost anywhere between $25-50 and even upwards up to $100."
And even upwards FROM $100.
I guess this reflects my bias.
Bob
5th Dec 2014 03:37 UTCJoseph Polityka Expert
Keep in mind that any expenses you incur when searching out specimens have to be added to the price of the specimen. That 50 dollar fluorite you bought at Tucson cost you a lot more when you factor in your travel expenses. My point is not to look at this as a big money make but to enjoy the hobby for the beauty, the fun of the chase and the fellowship. And remember it is worth the price you sell it for, no more, no less.
In my lifetime I have visited many museums around the world, both large and small, and can tell you, most dealers and collectors will never be able to acquire the classic specimens that exist in those institutions.
Otherwise I agree with Jolyon.
5th Dec 2014 05:25 UTCDavid Garske
Dave
5th Dec 2014 07:47 UTCChristian Auer 🌟 Expert
Why is it always necessary to bring money into this hobby? Money is of course a point but not the most important. If it would be so I would pick up another hobby - and not because I cannot afford a good specimen.
I have scientistic basis and my values of a low-medium-high end specimen are totally different.
The same old story. I play golf the other football. We aren`t the same even we all play with balls. But I tolerate football and expect to be tolerated too!
5th Dec 2014 10:05 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
> They would be wrong!!!
No, they would just have a different view of high-end to you. That is the whole point, the whole question is pretty meaningless. It's like asking what is "museum quality".
Jolyon
5th Dec 2014 13:16 UTCRolf Luetcke Expert
One point I wanted to add to the mix is something associated with the Min. Record which was noted by Bob Harman at the beginning. This was when I was watching the CD about a mineral show. In there a "new" collector, about three years into the hobby was talking about his collection. He was using the term "collecting" this and that. I saw that the terminology about "collecting" has changed. I always thought that collecting was when you actually collected the specimens yourself. I know in todays market that is not possible but I did note that the new collector interviewed had never actually been in the field and collected anything himself, only used his bank account to amass a high end collection.
This last Tucson mineral show I came across one of the siderites with chalcopyrite from China. It was priced at $40. It was the first room we went in at the hotel but the specimen was nearly hand size and going against our own advice I bought the piece.
I saw the same minerals in other rooms for between a hundred and two hundred and later on ebay for over $800. That is quite a range.
My main point is that it sure helps if you have an idea of pricing of specimens.
Rolf
5th Dec 2014 15:38 UTCNorman King 🌟 Expert
5th Dec 2014 16:07 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.
5th Dec 2014 19:36 UTCHolger Hartmaier 🌟
I agree with previous posts that the terms high, mid and low-end with respect to mineral valuations are entirely subjective. Based on a quick scan of the advertisements posted by dealers in a recent copy of Rocks and Minerals magazine, there are none that refer to themselves in those terms. I see terms like "fine minerals", "classic localities", "rare", "quality specimens", "minerals for research, intermediate and advanced collectors", etc.
In general, the marketplace contains sufficient dealers to satisfy every niche of the hobby.
Mineral specimens are a luxury commodity so normal supply/demand economics don't necessarily apply. Dealers are free to set their price point at whatever they believe the market will bear. Since each specimen is unique, it is up to the collector to determine if price and quality meet their individual requirements. Unfortunately, at most minerals shows, comparison shopping to see if the same type of specimen is available at a cheaper price somewhere else is not an option, especially for single pieces, as there is a risk of losing it to another buyer while you are looking around.
At shows, I always visit every dealer to see what is available. I don't avoid going to dealers perceived to be "high end". Even though the specimens may be out of my price range, at least one can expect to see examples of fine minerals from classic localities. On the low-end side, representative specimens may be available from localities that are currently accessible by collectors. If you factor in potential travel costs to collect at that locality, even a $100 "low- end" specimen might be a bargain.
Whatever we purchase should meet the objectives of our interests and collection focus and provide the joy we seek in engaging in this hobby.
5th Dec 2014 21:26 UTCPaul Brandes 🌟 Manager
5th Dec 2014 22:19 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.
I really have to agree with your last post!
Chet
5th Dec 2014 22:52 UTCSusan Robinson
6th Dec 2014 00:41 UTCHomberbre
However, I would add the following:
Low end specimens usually have noticeable damage.
High end specimens are usually sold by snobs to other snobs.
6th Dec 2014 03:44 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wouldn't say that the spectacular amazonites
> mined near Georgetown, Colorado or the
> rhodochrosites from the Sweet Home mine are
> undervalued, even though they have been
> self-collected, using major equipment. The
> definition of self-collected to me would include
> using power equipment to procure the minerals, as
> well as collectors who only use hand tools.
> Perhaps we need to state "self collected by using
> only hand tools." to separate the two differences
> in "self collected".
I think that might be an interesting differentiation for field and self-collectors. I myself collect only using hand-tools and have not used any kind of power tools to collect. While there is more work needed I feel that it is more rewarding than potentially damaging or destroying a pocket due to miscalculation or force. However that being said there are some localities or areas where a collector might need power tools (ie Fluorichterite Occurrence near Wilberforce , Ontario).
6th Dec 2014 04:32 UTCHolger Hartmaier 🌟
Once power tools become involved, the amateur collector is moving into a gray jurisdictional/legal zone depending on location. For example, highway departments may look the other way if amateur collectors are just surface collecting loose rock pieces from ditches adjacent to highway rock cuts. However, they will quickly close down any locality where collectors start to physically excavate into the rock cut itself due to the potential for liability associated with instability and rockfalls. The fluorichterite locality mentioned in the previous post is a prime example. It has been under constant rockhound siege by jackhammers and rock saws. I believe the site is now closed to collectors as a result.
6th Dec 2014 07:11 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert
The only real matters are that some collectors take home what others would define as near "leaverite", and that is a real value difference. Collectors who have passed on their finds have had others "weed out" that kind of material, and the best of the best they collected of course has a greater value overall. Current collectors still have their personal affections for all of it, and little of it has gone through that (admittedly difficult, even painful) culling process. Current collectors also, by definition, work localities which are not yet extinct, which has a large effect on it's current value. Yes, private localities have an effect on pricing as well, and there is a level of artificial, sometimes unreasonable, value place on some of that material which may even be solely dependent on the attitude of the owner/operator of those claims.
There should be no assumption that self collected means less valuable. Don't confuse lesser quality material, personally but not generally valued material, with self collected material in general. I certainly never held that opinion, not ever.
Thank goodness for "self collectors", (despite that fact that every mineral sample ever collected or saved was picked up by one). Where would we be without them!
MRH
6th Dec 2014 08:10 UTCChristian Auer 🌟 Expert
That`s simply my interpretation of value, others have different ones. Glad we aren`t all the same.
6th Dec 2014 14:07 UTCBob Harman
As part of a discussion of the total health of the collector mineral hobby, and for those not adverse to discussing $$$, and for those who have not seen the current Min Rec article that I referred to, unnamed dealer # 8 stated: "THE LOW END, LET'S SAY LESS THAN $1,000 PER SPECIMEN, IS A BIT WEAK."
That dollar figure in that sentence of the article caught my interest enough for me to pose my original question in my posting here on Mindat. Whether you care at all about $$$ in the context of field collecting or buying or swapping collectible minerals, I frankly found that $$$ figure quite offensive. A thousand dollars (and less), was considered low end ???!!!
I, who can afford to buy much of what I want, was personally offended for my friends and the many, many mineral collectors who can only look at and covet thousand dollar mineral specimens and can't even come close to affording them.
For this moment, let us forget about whether this is a gold specimen or a micro mount or a calcite or a tourmaline etc etc.
A thousand dollars is low end??!! REALLY? CHEERS………BOB
6th Dec 2014 14:33 UTCAlfred L. Ostrander
OK, this isn't exactly the question Bob raised. Just for sake of discussion I am going to consider a days wage as being near to entry level for mid-range pricing. I don't think $58.00 today will buy what $20.00 did about 40 years ago. And I say that from looking at specimens I purchased for $20.00 back in the early 1970's. But then, specimens didn't travel as far as they do now. Growing up a ways (100 miles) from a major city with only a small rock shop nearby, the worldwide selection of minerals available now just wasn't available to me then. Tri-State, Southern Illinois, and Mexican specimens where readily available and affordable. Zeolites from India? What was that? Morocco? You got to be kidding! I think you get the picture.
Just recently on another thread on cost of high end specimens I made note of an inexpensive fluorite specimen I purchase in the early 1970's.It can be argued that since the Illinois mines are all shut down that the cost of a fluorite from those mines will go up. Considering the price and specimen 40 years ago were considered a good price and common but nice quality, I find it hard to swallow the mega price attached to the specimen that was being discussed. Good heavens, there was a freight train of zeroes after the first digit. Good for me if I could sell mine for that price but that isn't the question here either. My point is that the value range will always be changing even if I struggle to grasp how over 40 years time a specimen went from about 2 hours working wage to almost 2 years years working wage. And why was that specimen once considered common at low end pricing and now would rate well up into the high end price range. You can call it supply and demand, but for my pocket book, I would be seriously looking at a nice Chinese fluorite. Even then, 15 years ago I paid less than $20.00 for several nice Chinese fluorites that now each retail for over $100.00. Does that mean these specimens went from decent low end priced to mid level price and quality?
Of course, capitalism also includes the collapse of an over priced market. Just sayin......
Best Regards,
Al O
6th Dec 2014 15:24 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager
6th Dec 2014 16:51 UTCJohn M Stolz Expert
The question I heard didn't have anything to do with dollars. It didn't have anything to do with whether it was self-collected using fingernails, hand tools, or backhoes. It didn't have anything to do with size.
Jeez, all these categories created to quantify our enjoyment.
Jolyon answered the question a long time ago. What else is there to talk about other than those qualities of a mineral that we hold in such high regard--perhaps with a picture or two. I doubt this thread would last long if it focused on low- or mid-quality specimens. So talk about what's valuable to you--not what's valuable to someone else. PS--as measured with currency
6th Dec 2014 16:58 UTCJohn Betts
For evidence I suggest looking at the price variation of vanadinite from Morocco on Minfind.com. Similar specimens sell for $75 to $4500.
6th Dec 2014 17:06 UTCRock Currier Expert
6th Dec 2014 17:56 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my 25 years in the mineral business, attending
> hundreds of mineral shows and selling 60,000+
> minerals specimens, I have come to one conclusion:
> You can sell any mineral at any price.
>
> For evidence I suggest looking at the price
> variation of vanadinite from Morocco on
> Minfind.com. Similar specimens sell for $75 to
> $4500.
Even though a specimen may sell for a high-price can you honestly say that both the buyer and the seller were well informed and presented with all the necessary facts before completing the transaction. In my honest opinion the majority of specimens shouldn't command a high market price. Take for example a cabinet Calcite I have seen some of them in the high hundreds and even thousands. This is a very common mineral and to have such a markup even from a notable locality is questionable at best. I am not directing it at you or anyone in particular but I have noticed this trend.
Rock Currier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is ever settled, but
> as humans we seem to enjoy arguing endlessly about
> such things.
Exactly and instead of solving issues we are constantly divided about various issues. It seems that humans will find an excuse to argue and to debate anything rather than solving an issue or problem. I guess it is easier to discuss it rather than to solve something.
Van King Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've been staff mineralogist at Ward's Natural
> Science, Est. for 7 years and a mineralogical
> consultant for 27 years. In that time, I also have
> been a mineralogical appraiser. In 1982, I was
> asked to be a second appraiser on a charitable
> gift valued at $1,000,000.00 I was able to
> document that the retail replacement cost of the
> gift was actually $996,000 short of
> $1,00,000.00.00 as the gift items were mundane
> materials with gem sounding names. The gift was,
> of course, refused. Once I was asked to appraise a
> museum collection (1987) and the values of the
> other independent appraiser and mine came within
> $200 of each other on a valuation at that time of
> $344,000. Since that time, the collection which is
> now in another museum and one specimen from that
> appraised collection is now worth that full
> amount, because of the rise in the high end
> market. Some of those specimens have not advanced
> in price in the same time period. The two
> experiences show some of the variability in
> appraising. Even in the high-end market, many
> specimens are sold successively to various higher
> end dealers, before reaching the consumer. Dave
> Wilbur once said that a customer wouldn't pay an
> astonishingly high price for a specimen unless
> someone previously had paid a somewhat similar
> astonishing price for it. Rock Currier and I, in
> our book, The World's Most Incredible Mineral
> Specimens (a privately published spoof about
> minerals), said that micromounts were for
> collectors who couldn't afford "real specimens".
> As you know, we are both micromounters so the
> spoof was somewhat directed at ourselves.
> Nonetheless, as a dealer selling micromounts as
> well as "full-sized" specimens, I believe that I
> have held the world record five times for price of
> a micromount in the standard-size USA micromount
> box. In each case, it was for a virtually unique
> specimen. The most recent record was in 2007 for a
> $3000 micromount, but which held the record for
> only 3 weeks. Nonetheless, there were still two
> people vying for my specimen. More recently, I
> sold bags of unsorted mounted micromounts for $25
> per 100 specimens, which was the retail value of
> just the boxes. I was also relieved that I could
> have gotten that much. A final anecdote is about
> an A. Foote specimen of vanadinite from Arizona
> that was priced at $1.25 (about 1900). However,
> the specimen did not appreciate in value. A
> century later, it was still worth $1.25, however
> the label was worth $50.
There is no specimen in my opinion that is worth a million dollars nor even a hundred thousand or even tens of thousands of dollars. These are just arbitrary figures and reflect 'fiat' currency and pricing and also inflation. You mentioned a a $3000 micromount. That is the priciest micromount I have ever heard of. Unless it is a one of a kind find or a limited species with one locality I don't see how it is justified. Even rare species of minerals such as Sperrylite and Silver minerals can be found for affordable (<$100) prices for micromounts and those are justifiably rare species. Even rare radioactive minerals cannot command such a high price premium even if they are from Shinkolowbe.
The original poster in this thread asked us for our opinions and what we believe low/mid and high-end specimens are worth in terms of fiat currency.
6th Dec 2014 18:06 UTCJohn M Stolz Expert
So, here's a specimen that my eye likes to settle on in the cabinet: beautiful color and form and the interesting phantoming. I like the texture of the striated sides. As I focus on the little dings--one on the left side of the front face (in case you, like me have trouble finding it) and the on the termination--I think of how these do such a service to the piece by because to me, they accentuate the impossibly sharp angles and clean lines of the piece.
What I don't think;
- what a deal
- crap, I paid too much
- jeez, I wish they hadn't used mechanized equipment
- I would feel so much better about this piece if I had hiked in thru that snowstorm instead of using the 4wd (or perhaps, I'm so glad I toughed it out and didn't turn the heater on once on the way in and out!)
- unbelievable how so many people throw their money away on quartz of all things
- hey--I bet that thing would really stir up the vortexes in Sedona
What I sometimes think:
-I need to get a bit more light on this guy.
-I really need to move that beach pebble out of the case--I just hope I can remember to put it back in the next time the grandkids visit.
6th Dec 2014 19:14 UTCOnna Stene
6th Dec 2014 22:27 UTCNorman King 🌟 Expert
To add a few more irrrelevant thoughts, can you (you all; y'all) imagine how long it would take me to find, by my own means, that fluorite trisoctahedron, that perfect kunzite crystal, cubes of magnetite, and I could go on and on? Got to go to Tucson!
6th Dec 2014 23:12 UTCOnna Stene
My version:
Low end-the worst of what a specimen will produce-ill-formed crystals with dull, faded or little color, highly fractured; commercial grade-they are worth more as a tool than as a mineral speciment
Mid grade- partially "perfect" specimens with some part of it perfect, but other parts lacking ie.nice crystals but not the best color or clarity, but not the worst; poorly formed crystals with great color, clarity
High grade-the best of what a specimen has to offer-perfectly formed crystals with high color, clarity; rare crystal formation i.e. crystalline form of gold vs water worn nugget
6th Dec 2014 23:18 UTCbart
6th Dec 2014 23:30 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager
Any paint job can be copied. Any game is just a very transient activity. I'd rather pay that money for a nice stable rock. :)-D
7th Dec 2014 00:06 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why is it considered acceptable to get a 7-figure
> price for some paint on a sheet of canvas, or even
> for winning a game in some sport, but not for a
> superb and irreplaceable mineral specimen? :-S
>
> Any paint job can be copied. Any game is just a
> very transient activity. I'd rather pay that money
> for a nice stable rock. :)-D
Why is it considered acceptable that sports players should be paid salaries ten and hundreds times more than what an average middle-class earner makes in Canada/America?
A superb and irreplaceable specimen should not command a price similar to that salary range. If you want to look at minerals as investments then you should invest in precious metals and not buying inflated 'fiat' currency specimens. You can't eat a rock but it would be much easier to barter or to sell precious metals than do the same with a mineral specimen in a situation of fiat collapse. There could be an exception if you had a high-end native element specimen such as a a platinum or gold nugget.
bart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apparently it is an arbitrary amount of zeroes in
> the price. Just when you think you've seen prices
> get as absurd as they can possibly get you go and
> see a 4 gram Pakistani aquamarine thumbnail, WITH
> DAMAGE, for sale for $2000.00. Or at least I do.
I think that's ironic considering that Pakistani Minerals flood the market and to ask for such a price for an Aquamarine is simply greed. In my opinion I prefer the Tabular Beryl's (Goshenite/Aquamarine) from Mt. Xuebaoding more than Pakistani Aquamarines. Either way I wouldn't be surprised if someone buys the specimen.
7th Dec 2014 02:00 UTCtom v
7th Dec 2014 02:37 UTCOnna Stene
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apparently it is an arbitrary amount of zeroes in
> the price. Just when you think you've seen prices
> get as absurd as they can possibly get you go and
> see a 4 gram Pakistani aquamarine thumbnail, WITH
> DAMAGE, for sale for $2000.00. Or at least I do.
I agree-case in point: I don't know if anyone here has heard of My Little Pony, they are toy ponies for girls ages 3 and up and they come in many different colors and styles. I played with the original ponies when I was a kid, and now I collect them and let my nieces play with them. Some of the original ponies were produced in low numbers because Hasbro did not think they would be very popular. One of these in particular was named Mimic. Someone decided they wanted a Mimic pony at all costs, and ended up paying over $300 on an EBay auction for her. Now, all Mimic ponies are being sold for $200 to $400 in decent condition, $800 to $1000 in original packaging. These toys were originally sold for $5-$6 in Kmart. One person desperate to get this toy suddenly made it highly collectible, and people continue to pay those prices for her.
7th Dec 2014 04:22 UTCTom Trebisky
And I was going to say they would be a moron, but that isn't quite right, I guess they would just be a snob.
But why should we continue to throw mud?
And why should money be the defining metric? And what are we measuring? The specimen or the collector?
7th Dec 2014 15:25 UTCTony Charlton
Money aside for know.
For a high end I would say it has to be in the larger size range for that mineral It has to be undamaged? (Anybody collect Franklin NJ). And something that is generally accepted as desirable. Rarity and ascetic beauty help.
For a mid-range I would say anything that does not fit the other two categories falls into this one.
For the low end it is the leverites that get the new collectors exited.
Value of any collectible is a very subjective thing that is based on Human psychology..
Collect whatever makes You happy and do not fret for the things that are out of Your reach., monetarily or geographically.
And good collecting to all!!!!
7th Dec 2014 15:36 UTCSpencer Ivan Mather
Spencer.
7th Dec 2014 19:34 UTCbillmcbride
7th Dec 2014 20:22 UTCEd Clopton 🌟 Expert
I'm at work in the ER today, where we received our fifth opiate overdose of the day an hour ago (around 2 pm). (And that's a Sunday, in a smallish city in Maine!) There are people out there paying good money for things a lot more transient than a football game!
7th Dec 2014 20:42 UTCRock Currier Expert
How can you say that no mineral specimen is worth a million dollars when you look at some of the modern painters who paintings are selling for many millions of dollars. I would think that a fine minerals specimens should be worth at least as much.
7th Dec 2014 22:56 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager
The so-called "insane" prices being paid for high-end mineral specimens reflect this realization. Not in my league - I've personally never paid more than $2,000 for a mineral - but I can easily understand why others can buy and sell at levels involving three more zeros in the price. I take pleasure in all my minerals, even $5 micromounts. The issue here was not the pleasure or educational value of the hobby, it was whether the "high end" is really worth what s being paid these days, and it obviously is, quite apart from whether you and I can afford those "high end" pieces.
7th Dec 2014 23:26 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vitaliy,
> How can you say that no mineral specimen is worth
> a million dollars when you look at some of the
> modern painters who paintings are selling for many
> millions of dollars. I would think that a fine
> minerals specimens should be worth at least as
> much.
Well I am not sure we can compare a man-made object to one that is not man-made. The reason that I personally believe no specimen should command a price of a million dollars is going back to the history of mineral collecting and even high-end dealers. Minerals right now have been turned into works of 'arts' and which is why we see those in the upper and .1 and .01% also collecting minerals. I was recently reading this article:
http://wallaceterrycjr.com/2014/07/18/the-zen-of-stephanite-collecting-minerals-in-the-era-of-art/
It argues that after the 1970's minerals have been objectified and represented as works of arts. This in turn led to a dramatic changing in pricing and values. I agree with the authors assessment. If minerals were worth perhaps in the low thousands even for high-end specimens in the 1960's by various high-end dealers then the trend has exponentially increased today. Those so called 'thousands' have now become 'tens of thousands' and higher. Now some may argue that the purchasing power and value of the dollar has decreased since 1911 by over 95% which is correct. However the pricing should reflect realistic values and not a markup simply due to dealer status or profit-grab.These specimens that are marketed as the best of their kind are only benchmark specimens for today and not the future. Tomorrow someone may uncover a better specimen and if a dealer persists with the same pricing then the above is made clear. I honestly would not pay a thousand dollars for a specimen unless it was a rare species such as Sperrylite or the Silver minerals or if it is a Kongsberg silver or a native element. Even cabinet sized specimens should not command thousand dollar pricing especially for common minerals such as Calcite.
I myself am a younger collector and to see this kind of pricing just amazes me. There are less and less younger collectors entering the hobby and more dealers are marketing or targeting the upper-class collector. The future of this hobby is uncertain after the older collectors pass away or stop collecting. Dealers should be targeting all sorts of collectors and not trying to focus on the money class. I entered this hobby many years ago and had help thanks to relatives and friends who worked in the profession as Geologists/Mineralogists etc... and since then have built a relatively small collection consisting of acquired and self-collected specimens. Onna Stene brought up a great example of what happens once a trend or pattern is established. Thank you Onna Stene for bringing that example to the discussion.
7th Dec 2014 23:44 UTCAlex Earl 🌟 Expert
I don't really have a price range for things I buy once in a while, but I am not going to pay outrageous prices for something I don't value at that level, even if I like that particular mineral.
Alex
7th Dec 2014 23:50 UTCDoug Daniels
10th Dec 2014 10:35 UTCMario Pauwels
I just received my Mineralogical Record nov./dec. issue. The way that the author wrote and approached that article is somewhat strange to me. It is literally written now in the worlds most prominent magazine that high end collecting is a very good investment and all that is confirmed by a dozen selected dealers and collectors, all anonymous off course. I agree with almost all the dealers and collectors their comments in that article, but the article is written in a way that it looks almost like a paid advertisement to attract even more pure investors into our hobby. Also, the Min Rec is the most reputable mineralogical magazine in the world, but why had the responses of both dealers and collectors had to be anonymous, because there is nothing wrong with their comments.
Best regards,
Mario Pauwels
10th Dec 2014 15:19 UTCNorman King 🌟 Expert
Someone needs to interview collectors picked at random, perhaps at the Tucson show--not "selected."
14th Dec 2014 00:20 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course, the dealers are in favor of it. The
> dealers may be the only ones who derive permanent
> benefit. Buyers who are buying the over-priced
> stuff may be gung-ho today while the market is
> still going up. But look at what has happened to
> gold and oil. And remember tulips! Like the
> investment pros say, "Don't invest any money you
> cannot afford to lose." When the top 1% have
> taken all of the benefit they can from current
> business and economic practices, the astronomical
> appreciation in mineral values will end (or, to
> use another well-known phrase, "The worm will turn
> when trodden upon.")
>
> Someone needs to interview collectors picked at
> random, perhaps at the Tucson show--not
> "selected."
I agree that it is a bubble just like many other bubbles we have that exist and float around. The inflated prices for these specimens may seem very high right now but I would like to see what the price will normalize at when the next market correction rolls around (note I said when and not if). Some of the pricing on some specimens I have seen is simply enormous and I am sure there are others who have seen similar pricing schemes. I remember seeing a Munich show report and the report of a Kongsberg silver called the King of Silvers and guess the price. It was priced at 100K Euros. It was a nice specimen but not worth the price that was labelled as.
When the pricing of mineral specimens exceed the cost of a motorcycle/cheap car or even a house that is when you know they are not worth the asking price. If we had kept the 1960's pricing of perhaps a thousand or two for the most high-end specimens I am sure that even lower and middle class collectors would be more content with that. Instead what we have is specimens commanding 10x or even 100x that price.
I also do not have the opportunity nor the time/money to visit many of these miners or mines and haggle for the specimens. I can do some self collecting in Ontario with a few buddies or a club but that is the extent of it.
To put ridiculous pricing into real-world examples I was at the Bancroft Gemboree and the pricing I have seen there was simply mind blowing. A thumbnail Smoky Quartz/Amazonite for $1800 , Sperrylite's from Broken Hammer for $500/600+ , etc... If more collectors refused to pay high-end pricing then those dealers would perhaps have an epiphany and price it more affordably. Instead what is happening is those with deep pockets and little to no understanding of the market come in and buy specimens at their asked price especially high-end. If a dealer can sell at that pricing it is like a case of peer pressure. Other dealers will try and follow the lead and soon the main focus is on capturing a high-end collector. Why cater to a mid-end or low-end middle class/lower class collector when a high-end collector is enough.
That's not to say that low and middle class collectors cannot find a deal but it is hard to very hard to find a good deal these days. Some may argue the trickle-down theory works and that it applies to lower class and middle class collectors. I am not sure why a field collector would sell low/mid-end specimens when a single high-end find can pay for their costs and pocket a profit. They would either throw out the lower quality material or just likely turn it into lapidary material or tumbled material.
14th Dec 2014 01:24 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager
15th Dec 2014 11:52 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager
I remember in the 90's buying some very good stuff like specimens shown below for 2500 French Francs. That was 15.000 Belgian francs and I made 42.000 Bef a month that time. ( 2500 FF is now around €375 )
I see nowadays that such specimens are easily sold for €2500 and up if they get in the hands of a high-end dealer.
You can not imagine how happy I am that I bought these. I would be unabel to pay such prices today as this is more than a month wages.
I remember the early 80's where Italian dealers where throwing Sicilian sulfurs at your head for less that €30. Try to find a " decent " one today for under €1000. Almost a miracle.
Size doesn't matter, a 7 mm stottite, andyrobertsite, roubaultite or sharpite is, IMHO, a high end specimen.
Since I collect, I have tried to have a good relationship with many dealers. They know what I am looking for and if they have something, they mail me. Not always cheap but it saves me a lot of money.
And I can assure you, you not only find high-end specimens on " high-end " dealer tables.
If you look around, there are very good things to be had at "ordinairy " dealers........... with a few zero's less.
Where do you think the high-end dealers get most of their stuff ?? At ordinairy dealers tables off course.
To answer the initial question, Jolyon is quite right with a little nuances however.
Just my 2 cent.
Take care and best regards.
or
15th Dec 2014 15:57 UTCJamison K. Brizendine 🌟 Expert
John Betts was right on target about price ranges on specimens and the example with the vanadinites from Morocco was an excellent one. To me, the only real difference between a high end and a low end specimen is subjectivity.
Alfredo also made a great point about the example with the nobility and them owning mineral collections. We can extend this thought to famous gems too, since their origins come from the very minerals we collect.
One of my favorite stories revolves around one of the most famous diamonds: The Koh-i-Noor Diamond
When Shah Shuja fled Afghanistan in 1813 he sought refuge with the Sikh ruler of Lahore: Maharaja Ranjit Singh (The Lion of Punjab). Now Singh knew the Shuja had the Koh-i-Noor Diamond and desperately wanted it. When Singh inquired about a price, Shuja replied to him:
“Take five strong men. Let the first throw a stone northward, the second eastward, the third southward, the fourth westward, and the fifth upward, into the air. Fill all the space thus outlined with gold and you will still not have achieved the value of the Mountain of Light”
In other words, the diamond was priceless, but Singh eventually did come to own the diamond. Today the Koh-i-Noor Diamond is part of the British Crown (Bharadwaj 2002).
Here are more two examples:
The Princie Diamond
This is an intense pink 34.65 carat diamond. The diamond was discovered in the Golconda Mines of India, where it belonged to the royal family of Hyderabad until 1960. The diamond was purchased by jewelers, Van Cleef & Arpels, where it was sent to their Paris, France branch where it was mounted as a pendant.
The jewelers wished to have the diamond “christened” and threw a party. Among the guests was the son of the Maharaja of Baroda, Pratapsingh Gaekwad and his second wife Sita Devi; Sayaji Rao Prataprao Gaekwad, whom his mother called “Princie”. Apparently, “Princie” made such an impression that Pierre Arpels decided to name his pink diamond after him (Bharadwaj 2002).
In April 2013 it went to auction at Christie’s where it sold for forty million dollars, the highest price ever paid for a single diamond at Christie’s. Obviously someone really, really, wanted that diamond to shell out that much money and thought it was worth that much.
The last record for a single diamond sale at Christie’s was the Wittlesbach Diamond, which makes for a nice segue…
The Wittlesbach (Graff) Diamond
This diamond also originated from the Golgonda Mines in India and was roughly 35.5 carats. It was originally part of the Spanish crown jewels before ending up in the Hapsburg family. When the Archduchess Amelia Magdelena married Charles Albert, the Bavarian Crown Prince, the diamond was named the Wittlesbach, which was the ruling family of Bavaria.
In 2008, the diamond was sold to Laurence Graff. Graff, however, felt the need to “repair” the diamond and remove the flaws. The “recut” diamond is now 31.06 carats.
After Graff recut the diamond, collectors and historians were extremely irate with Graff for “destroying a national treasure”, because after the recut it lost its historical value. Despite the fact that the diamond is now internally flawless, historians felt that the scratches, the original shape and the original color defined the history of the Wittlesbach.
Our hobby is unique because every specimen is different. John Betts made an excellent educational article on his website titled Mineral Prices: Why So High? The crux of that article is that a specimen’s monetary worth is in the eye of the beholder and that there is no absolute value to any specimen. This is actually one of my main critiques (and disappointment) with reading Stuart Schneider’s Collecting Fluorescent Minerals (2011), is because he included a “price guide” in that book.
References cited:
Bharadwaj, M., 2002, Great diamonds of India: India Book House Private Limited, Mumbai, India.143 p.
16th Dec 2014 03:05 UTCHoward Heitner
19th Dec 2014 23:10 UTCturtledove thrushe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIZqI7OdXkM
@Alfredo:
What would be your definition of a proper few days wage considering the massive wealth gap in America and rapidly disappearing infastructure/middle-class. If it is in the low hundreds then that is a somewhat reasonable pricing depending on the species. However for a more common species pricing in the hundreds is unrealistic.
20th Dec 2014 00:06 UTCHolger Hartmaier 🌟
If we assume an 8-hour average work day, you would have to earn $150/hour to buy one ounce of gold per day. You would have to work about 15 months, at 7 days a week to earn enough money to buy that specimen.
You can do the math based on your individual financial resources to compare.
20th Dec 2014 00:36 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> I watched the auction video posted by Vitaliy, and
> I would have to agree that the bid price was
> insane. It was nonetheless a remarkable rose
> quartz specimen. With regard to value, how are we
> to judge? I once heard that throughout time, the
> price of a nice, high quality suit was equivalent
> to about one ounce of gold. With the current price
> of gold at around $1200 per troy ounce, this rule
> of thumb seems reasonable. The selling price of
> the rose quartz would therefore be equivalent to
> about 458 troy ounces of gold.
>
> If we assume an 8-hour average work day, you would
> have to earn $150/hour to buy one ounce of gold
> per day. You would have to work about 15 months,
> at 7 days a week to earn enough money to buy that
> specimen.
>
> You can do the math based on your individual
> financial resources to compare.
Holger the initial starting price was also quite 'insane' and the bids that drove up the price just made it unrealistic and far-fetched. Was it a nice specimen? Perhaps but I don't believe in the prices shown at that auction. I also noticed how they were trying to appeal to new or beginning collectors by making them think that these are normal or expected prices.
It's quite east to judge. If a specimen exceeds the price of a cheap used car then you know the pricing is already far-fetched and unrealistic. If the pricing exceeds the tens of thousands then it becomes absurdly insane as you can buy a brand new car for that price. If a specimen exceeds a hundred thousand or more with that you can buy a house or land/property. If a specimen exceeds any of those analogues (used car ie low thousands , new car tens of thousands , house/property/land hundreds of thousands) then you can easily judge and compare. I would go even further than that and let the dealer know and make the buyers aware of this.
The comparison to gold is not realistic and also not relevant here. How can we compare a Rose Quartz specimen to that of a gold bar or even a bar made of precious metals (palladium , silver , platinum, etc...). You can't eat a specimen and you can't trade a raw mineral specimen for currency in times of financial crisis save perhaps raw native elements.
I won't even compare or compute the math because I won't be afraid to admit that I wouldn't be able to afford such a specimen. Even if I was able to afford such a specimen I would still live low and purchase specimens that are affordable and don't cost more than even an old used car. I don't buy into the North American culture where maxing out credit cards and taking on mountains of debt is a national past-time.
I might take flack or criticism for this but I firmly believe in older mineral pricing and structure before minerals became considered the upper-class trophy or game. I believe that calling this out is justified as minerals should be affordable to the lower and middle classes and not just tailored towards the upper-class for the best specimens.
20th Dec 2014 17:29 UTCJeremy A. Zolan
20th Dec 2014 17:40 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
There are plenty of minerals that are affordable to everyone. The best specimens are always going to be more expensive - that goes without saying.
The problem is that as we all get more advanced in our collecting interests, we desire more and more perfect things, and usually our budgets do not grow as rapidly as our desires.
20th Dec 2014 18:55 UTCNorman King 🌟 Expert
The moral? Too many people nowadays can afford to feed their egos this way. (I hope it’s clear that this applies to the discussion about mineral prices.)
20th Dec 2014 20:29 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager
The specimen is very good but not worth the price of a ( more than ) decent house or 2 Ferrari's.
Keep in mind that the auctionneer takes usually a 30% fee atop this amount.
The video shows a kind off " cold " theater, with only a few people.
The room where the show is held, is quite nude.
Making a video like this is not a great deal. A video camera, a few friends and some invited customers who want to be on youtube, a coffee table and a telephone.
And a man who knows the bussiness of auction calling.
The " mise en scene " is in place.
Let the show begins.
After the sale, most " friends " applauded. Happy that another bought the specimen they would like to have.
Who takes this seriously ?? or am I from another planet ??? or am I the sucker to whom they want to sell the specimen ? C'mon.
A good commercial, better than the one for patatoe chips or tooth paste.
Take care and best regards from a man who has his 2 feet on the ground.
Paul.
21st Dec 2014 00:48 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> >I believe that calling this out is justified as
> minerals should be affordable to the lower and
> middle classes and not just tailored towards the
> upper-class for the best specimens.
>
> There are plenty of minerals that are affordable
> to everyone. The best specimens are always going
> to be more expensive - that goes without saying.
>
> The problem is that as we all get more advanced in
> our collecting interests, we desire more and more
> perfect things, and usually our budgets do not
> grow as rapidly as our desires.
I agree that there are specimens available to different classes the only difference is the condition and quality of those specimens available to the lower and middle-class collectors versus the higher-end collectors. Unfortunately we do not have such large budgets or even unconstrained wallets to that extent. If high-end specimen dealers priced their specimens "Competitively" and provided full disclosure and didn't cost more than an older used car then that would be more satisfactory. However the reality is that I have seen high-end specimens priced beyond reason. Yesterday I was looking at a few specimens and noticed pricing for such minerals as Pyrargyrite from the high tens of thousands and a Scheelite going for almost a hundred thousand dollars. There were many more similar pricing and the more affordable specimens were not really given much attention in comparison to these specimens. I probably counted more exposure and advertising for the high thousands of dollar specimens than for any specimen under <$100. This is from a well known mineral dealer who I will choose not to name at this time.
As I had written earlier if a specimen is priced more than an older used car then red flags should be going off for any buyer. An upper-class or wealthy collector might not mind but they have not had to stick to a more limited budget. Speaking of that it would be interesting to see upper-class collectors have their budget situation reversed and to see how they can afford or even purchase their previously purchased high-end specimens on a budget 10x/100x lower than what they previously had.
While it's true that as we advance in the hobby we develop our taste for collecting however no matter the financial status there should still be sane purchases of specimens. After all this is a hobby and our livelihood does not depend upon acquiring the next 'Picasso' specimen as high-end dealers would like us to think.
This also brings up another topic and discussion for younger collectors wanting to enter the hobby. With these ridiculous pricing schemes if someone is looking to enter the hobby and wants to purchase similar specimens they will be put off due to the cost. The state of this hobby is that based on personal observation there isn't that much promotion or interest from younger collectors these days compared to earlier periods and eras. That's not to say that younger collectors aren't being engaged or interested but far fewer than what the hobby needs to survive. I also say this myself as a younger collector.
Paul De Bondt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the dealer paid 550.000$ for it, for how much
> will he sell it ? Anyone, once, twice, sold to the
> sucker on the first row.
> The specimen is very good but not worth the price
> of a ( more than ) decent house or 2 Ferrari's.
> Keep in mind that the auctionneer takes usually a
> 30% fee atop this amount.
>
> The video shows a kind off " cold " theater, with
> only a few people.
> The room where the show is held, is quite nude.
>
> Making a video like this is not a great deal. A
> video camera, a few friends and some invited
> customers who want to be on youtube, a coffee
> table and a telephone.
> And a man who knows the bussiness of auction
> calling.
> The " mise en scene " is in place.
> Let the show begins.
> After the sale, most " friends " applauded. Happy
> that another bought the specimen they would like
> to have.
> Who takes this seriously ?? or am I from another
> planet ??? or am I the sucker to whom they want to
> sell the specimen ? C'mon.
>
> A good commercial, better than the one for patatoe
> chips or tooth paste.
>
> Take care and best regards from a man who has his
> 2 feet on the ground.
>
> Paul.
Paul I am not sure if you watched the video but there is a well known mineral dealer engaging in the bidding on this specimen. I am also not sure as to why you believe a specimen should be worth in the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands. Surely you would choose a Ferrari over a mineral specimen. If I was put in that position I would choose the Ferrari as you can't eat a specimen and you can't get to point A to B with a specimen either. Specimens that are high-end I consider in the hundreds of dollars to the very low thousands (think of the used old car analogy). This auction isn't a show or performance either as both the dealer and the auction house are known.
The dealer will also likely sell the specimen for a hefty markup ranging anywhere from 2-3x to 10x the price. This is a Rose Quartz specimen while it has nice aesthetics is not worth the price of a middle-class or lower-class house or even a sports car. In my opinion this specimen should have fetched the hundreds at best and not 100x that.
21st Dec 2014 01:52 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager
Don't forget that the type of people who pay 7-figure prices for minerals probably already have 3 Ferraris in the Garage, and a Bentley, but they know they won't ever see an identical mineral like that one again. (Just for the record, I don't have a Ferrari; my car barely runs and is worth less than my microscope.)
Re: "...younger collectors wanting to enter the hobby. With these ridiculous pricing schemes if someone is looking to enter the hobby and wants to purchase similar specimens they will be put off due to the cost."
This is a sentiment I see expressed often - High prices scare away new/younger collectors and will kill the hobby. Utter nonsense. That's like saying people will lose interest in art because Van Gogh's Sunflowers sold for $40 million. Or people will lose interest in bicycling because a top-of-the-line titanium bike costs more than a car. The high prices (in most hobbies) only affect the high end, a minority of the participants. The average hobbyist continues their interest as always, quite apart from prices at the high end.
At every mineral show I go to, I find interesting things to buy for less than $100, often even less than $20. There is always more good stuff in that price range than I can possibly carry home. And there are hundreds of dealers who deal in minerals in those price ranges. If you can only find interesting minerals for thousands of dollars, then you must be going only to the most famous dealers with the brightest case lights and biggest advertizing budgets. Keep your eyes open and look around more. Don't be like the car buyer who needed to buy a Kia to commute to work, so he walked into the Lamborghini showroom and then complained that he wouldn't be able to afford to get a car afterall!
Most young collectors start out field collecting anyway, years before they start buying, and for field collectors prices at the high end (or any end) are irrelevant. So I don't see high end mineral prices discouraging anyone from starting an interest in minerals, quite the opposite.
21st Dec 2014 02:10 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vitaliy, The reason you would choose the Ferrari
> over the specimen is because you don't have a
> Ferrari yet ;-) ...not because the Ferrari is
> intrinsically more valuable.
> Don't forget that the type of people who pay
> 7-figure prices for minerals probably already have
> 3 Ferraris in the Garage, and a Bentley, but they
> know they won't ever see an identical mineral like
> that one again. (Just for the record, I don't have
> a Ferrari; my car barely runs and is worth less
> than my microscope.)
The reason I would choose the Ferrari (provided that the funds were available) is simple because it can get me from Point A to Point B in probably half the time a regular car would take and because a specimen can't do that. It's true I don't have a Ferrari and to be honest I am not looking to get one either I would be satisfied with just a normal car for consumers nothing fancy and it is more realistic. The Geologists and Mineralogists in my family didn't have the equivalent to Ferrari's either. I've said this before in the previous post but those with high-end budgets I would like to see them make similar high-end budgets when they have to contend with a realistic or average budget most collectors normally have (10/100x lower). That would be interesting to see how the market reacts to this and how they would be able to adapt to realistic conditions.
> Re: "...younger collectors wanting to enter the
> hobby. With these ridiculous pricing schemes if
> someone is looking to enter the hobby and wants to
> purchase similar specimens they will be put off
> due to the cost."
>
> This is a sentiment I see expressed often - High
> prices scare away new/younger collectors and will
> kill the hobby. Utter nonsense. That's like saying
> people will lose interest in art because Van
> Gogh's Sunflowers sold for $40 million. Or people
> will lose interest in bicycling because a
> top-of-the-line titanium bike costs more than a
> car. The high prices (in most hobbies) only affect
> the high end, a minority of the participants. The
> average hobbyist continues their interest as
> always, quite apart from prices at the high end.
>
> At every mineral show I go to, I find interesting
> things to buy for less than $100, often even less
> than $20. There is always more good stuff in that
> price range than I can possibly carry home. And
> there are hundreds of dealers who deal in minerals
> in those price ranges. If you can only find
> interesting minerals for thousands of dollars,
> then you must be going only to the most famous
> dealers with the brightest case lights and biggest
> advertizing budgets. Keep your eyes open and look
> around more. Don't be like the car buyer who
> needed to buy a Kia to commute to work, so he
> walked into the Lamborghini showroom and then
> complained that he wouldn't be able to afford to
> get a car afterall!
>
> Most young collectors start out field collecting
> anyway, years before they start buying, and for
> field collectors prices at the high end (or any
> end) are irrelevant. So I don't see high end
> mineral prices discouraging anyone from starting
> an interest in minerals, quite the opposite.
It's a sentiment expressed often and also because it's true somewhat to a certain extent. Usually the less knowledgeable or newer collectors would be attracted to the most fanciest and expensive specimens either via shows or through the internet. When they see these kind of pricing they re-evaluate the hobby and realize that their budgets won't compete of that with others who can purchase the high-end material. The reality is also that the hobby is not attracting as many newer or younger people than what is needed to make it survive perhaps within a decade or a few. Sure you may see children and kids at shows but that is usually because they were just casually browsing or just wanted to attend. I remember in the high-schools that I had attended there was almost no focus on earth-sciences and almost no fellow collectors. There was one exception but he simply wanted to get rid of his father's or family collection.
As for the pricing that I disclosed there I was simply curious to see what high-end pricing schemes notable or reputable dealers would charge for those specimens. I have no intention of buying those specimens because I cannot afford them and even If I could I would choose a much more affordable specimen. I purchase from various dealers and I also self-collect so I never pay the kind of pricing I mentioned earlier. I always look for a deal or bargain even if that means purchasing a lower-end specimen. However the reason I mentioned those pricing patterns was because it usually follows similar patterns from other dealers and it is not an isolated case.
In terms of field collectors that is also becoming more and more difficult. Due to increasing government pressure and regulations many famous localities are being closed to collectors and fewer and fewer are available. There is actually more localities being closed in my opinion than are open for collectors. An example of this is famous field collecting sites in the Hastings Co./Haliburton Co. in Ontario. I also started out field collecting with makeshift tools and collecting locally and at limestone dumps however that was in the very early 2000's/late 1990's.
I honestly believe that these pricing schemes for high-end specimens is a mineral bubble just like the housing/subprime bubble of 2008. If prices drop when the bubble bursts I hope we can see normalization by 30%+ (keep in mind when the housing/subprime bubble burst housing prices declined by 20-30%+).
21st Dec 2014 06:31 UTCAlex Earl 🌟 Expert
I am also a rare mineral collector, and rare minerals are sometimes hard to come by during field collecting, even at localities known for them. I am, like all of us, unlucky at times. If I am unlucky, I am still able to purchase them at shows, or online, and most if the time for good prices. It all depends on what dealer I go to. The more "flashy" or well known the dealer is, the higher the prices. I am in no way freaked out about the "mineral bubble". As Alfredo said, there are many great specimens to be bought at low prices, it just takes a little bit of looking.
Another thing I would like to add, other collectors are worried if the hobby will survive. Don't worry, all it takes is a little bit of "spark" to get younger people like me into collecting, if you are worried, then I suggest you try to get younger people into the hobby by finding ways of sparking that same interest in others. The other day I was at school borrowing one of my teachers stereo microscopes to look at some Olivenite from the Clara mine, one of my friends wanted to see what I was looking at, so I showed him. He was instantly amazed, and after talking to him about it, and other minerals I had brought, he wanted to join me on my next trip out collecting. Like I said, it doesn't take much, we just need to try to get others interested. What got almost all of us started was most likely that rock we found that looked cool.
22nd Dec 2014 02:22 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alfredo, as a young collector myself (17) I would
> completely agree, the high prices didn't scare me
> off, I look at those kinds of specimens that are
> at huge prices and all I see is greed or high
> hopes on part of the seller. As you mentioned, I
> did start out field collecting as well, I am
> fortunate enough to live close to the Tintic
> District here in Utah, at first all of the no
> trespassing signs freaked me out, but I simply
> called the phone number on the signs and talked to
> the owner. I met him in person and he said the
> signs were more for safety concerns about the open
> shafts than anything else. The notion that all
> localities are being closed is wrong, it seems
> when well known localities are closed down, it
> freaks everyone out. There are many great
> localities that can still be collected at, such as
> the Tintics.
I disagree and that is because it plays a part to some extent for a younger or newer collector. If they are unable to afford pricier or more high-end material/specimens then they may resort to field collecting. The problem with this alternative is that as I have already mentioned that there are less and less field collecting localities available compared to earlier decades or eras. One thing to keep in mind is that younger collectors would likely have a budget that is very small compared to that of even average collectors unless they are from a privileged upper-class family or hierarchy. Therefore they would either have to field collect if there is any localities accessible to them or simply pursue mineralogy etc... without being able to acquire specimens using a silver pick method.
I would also like to point out that I didn't say that all localities are closed. I said that more localities are closing (for various reasons) than are being opened to collectors. I will quote my previous post:
"There is actually more localities being closed in my opinion than are open for collectors. An example of this is famous field collecting sites in the Hastings Co./Haliburton Co. in Ontario"
> I am also a rare mineral collector, and rare
> minerals are sometimes hard to come by during
> field collecting, even at localities known for
> them. I am, like all of us, unlucky at times. If I
> am unlucky, I am still able to purchase them at
> shows, or online, and most if the time for good
> prices. It all depends on what dealer I go to. The
> more "flashy" or well known the dealer is, the
> higher the prices. I am in no way freaked out
> about the "mineral bubble". As Alfredo said, there
> are many great specimens to be bought at low
> prices, it just takes a little bit of looking.
I am also a rare mineral collector particularly specializing in rare silver species and platinum based minerals. Perhaps our rare mineral specializations differ but the species that I enjoy collecting and specialize in as a collector are more pricier and smaller when encountered. That has been my observation especially for the platinum and silver based species. Take for example the Silver Sulfosalt's they normally occur as masses or grains and rarely as good crystals of a good size. It's hard to find or obtain them even in thumbnail size while keeping them affordable. Anything beyond that size and they are already out of reach of my budget especially.
Whether we choose to acknowledge the "mineral bubble" or not does not mean that in the high-end and thousand dollar specimen market there isn't an actual bubble. Speaking from an economic standpoint the definition according to wikipedia is:
"An economic bubble (sometimes referred to as a speculative bubble, a market bubble, a price bubble, a financial bubble, a speculative mania or a balloon) is "trade in high volumes at prices that are considerably at variance with intrinsic values"."
I would say that the high-end mineral specimen market falls under the market and price bubble fuelled by speculation and also by uncompetitive marketing and pricing of high-end specimens. For example take the practice of high-end dealers buying from low-end/mid-end dealers and then applying a massive mark-up at the same show or venue. That corresponds to a pricing bubble fuelled by speculative mania.
I recommend also taking a look at this link:
http://wallaceterrycjr.com/2014/07/18/the-zen-of-stephanite-collecting-minerals-in-the-era-of-art/
> Another thing I would like to add, other
> collectors are worried if the hobby will survive.
> Don't worry, all it takes is a little bit of
> "spark" to get younger people like me into
> collecting, if you are worried, then I suggest you
> try to get younger people into the hobby by
> finding ways of sparking that same interest in
> others. The other day I was at school borrowing
> one of my teachers stereo microscopes to look at
> some Olivenite from the Clara mine, one of my
> friends wanted to see what I was looking at, so I
> showed him. He was instantly amazed, and after
> talking to him about it, and other minerals I had
> brought, he wanted to join me on my next trip out
> collecting. Like I said, it doesn't take much, we
> just need to try to get others interested. What
> got almost all of us started was most likely that
> rock we found that looked cool.
While it is great that you have interested another school colleague to go field collecting the question is about long-term interest for newer collectors. If you go to most shows you will notice the demographic make-up of the mineral collectors and also dealers themselves. There are exceptions to this but the majority of younger collectors and children that visit these venues and shows are there because the family wanted to attend a casual event. The reality is that the hobby isn't attracting many younger people and within several decades from now the state of the hobby will be questioned. This is coupled by the lack of education towards earth-sciences both in secondary and elementary schools and a focus towards other more 'living' or 'human' subject areas/studies.
22nd Dec 2014 07:47 UTCDale Foster Manager
-------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that as we all get more advanced in our collecting interests, we desire more and more perfect things, and usually our budgets do not grow as rapidly as our desires.
I guess that really depends on the nature of your interest in collecting.
For me personally, whilst I can fully appreciate the beauty of high quality minerals, I don't feel any particular urge to own them.
My own sphere of interest is collecting examples of specific mineralisation from different localities within Cornwall and Devon, often the specimens appear quite mundane, indeed a few examples would probably even classified as 'leaverite' by some on here, but to me they are totally fascinating.
As to buying material, I set myself a maximum budget and stick to it rigidly. If others are happy to pay a 500% mark up that I know some dealers like to add on then that is up to them.
I would say the key is not to get hung up on high priced specimens. After all just having a bigger bank balance doesn't necessarily make for a more knowledgeable collector and based on some of the stories relayed to me, it would seem that the bigger the disposable income, the greater the level of rip off and scam some dealers seem happy to pull off.
Vitaliy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
After all this is a hobby and our livelihood does not depend upon acquiring the next 'Picasso' specimen as high-end dealers would like us to think.
Good advice - try heeding it and not bitching on about the subject.
22nd Dec 2014 15:19 UTCHarjo Neutkens Manager
22nd Dec 2014 16:20 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager
22nd Dec 2014 19:24 UTCturtledove thrushe
ex-Museum collections also are subject to adding tremendous value to a specimen depending on the piece and the history behind it. Often this can put such specimens beyond the reach of lower and middle class collectors with some exceptions. For example if a piece was in a notable museum then the pricing can add 10x or higher simply because of the label that it was in a museum.
Perhaps we need a mineral pricing regulatory commission that is not made up of mineral dealers but rather mineralogists/geologists.
22nd Dec 2014 21:56 UTCHolger Hartmaier 🌟
As collectors, we impose our own values on the meanings of lo-mid and high end and what we may perceive as being overpriced. For example, consider the following hypothetical scenarios involving the same specimen having a broad range of appeal to both beginner and advanced collectors. It doesn't matter what the actual mineral is to illustrate my point.
Scenario 1: The mineral is priced in the under $10 range. A beginning or financially limited collector might say, yes, I will buy that one, it is affordable and it is a nice addition to my collection. A more knowledgeable collector with more discretionary spending power may see it and say, wow, what a bargain! A well-heeled collector may ask the dealer if there are any better specimens of the same type available.
Scenario 2: The same mineral is now priced in the $10-$100 range. The beginner or financially limited collector looks it over and spends some time deciding on whether it fits into his budget and laments the growing number of "high end dealers" in the marketplace. The more knowledgeable collector might be happy to get it at a "fair price" and tell his friends how reasonably priced that dealer is. The well-heeled collector decides he can't pass up the bargain and buys the specimen knowing he has picked up a "sleeper".
Scenario 3: The same specimen is now priced in the $1000-$10,000 range. The beginning or financially limited collector shakes his head and laments the fact that minerals are being priced out of reach for the average collector. The more knowledgeable collector asks the dealer if he has any similar pieces available at less cost. The well-heeled collector buys it without hesitation and considers it a fair price.
22nd Dec 2014 22:44 UTCRock Currier Expert
Yes, in a completely logical world, specimen quality should not be effected by who owned them before. When I started collecting that's how I felt. But it is not a logical world and people do place value on objects owned by celebrities. How much value depends on the person who is buying the specimen. How much is a regular baseball compared to one signed by Babe Ruth? How much is an old pare of panties worth compared to one owned by Marilyn Monroe? If we don't understand the way the world works, it will lead us to grief.
22nd Dec 2014 22:58 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vitaliy
> Yes, in a completely logical world, specimen
> quality should not be effected by who owned them
> before. When I started collecting that's how I
> felt. But it is not a logical world and people do
> place value on objects owned by celebrities. How
> much value depends on the person who is buying the
> specimen. How much is a regular baseball compared
> to one signed by Babe Ruth? How much is an old
> pare of panties worth compared to one owned by
> Marilyn Monroe? If we don't understand the way the
> world works, it will lead us to grief.
I am not sure if we can compare man-made objects and non man-made objects such as minerals with each other. The problem with assigning a pedigree to it is that it is usually done to inflate or increase the value of an object or to make it look more significant/valuable. I can understand wanting to know the history of a specimen and how it reached our collections. If you do a comparison on similar specimens with varying degrees of pedigrees/history you will often find a specimen that has a lengthier or longer pedigree/history is often pricier. That's what I have observed even if the former collectors had the specimen only briefly. I myself have specimens that have varying degrees of pedigrees/history and to me their value doesn't differ simply because of the pedigree or who owned it previously.
Thanks for your input Rock Currier. This is quite an interesting discussion/topic that it has developed into.
22nd Dec 2014 23:14 UTCRock Currier Expert
Yes, of course a pedigree is always done to inflate or increase the value of an object or to make it look more significant/valuable. That's the way the world works. When it comes time for you to sell your collection almost certainly you will do the same. Even gemstones are given pedigrees where possible. Do you keep old labels with your specimens? When I started, I didn't do that because, well the specimen was the specimen and why would I want to keep an old label around when I could make my own and a better one. That lasted only a few years till I learned that was not the way the world worked and those labels added value to the specimen. Should I diminish the value of my specimens by failing to maintain their pedigree? Gradually I came to venerate specimens with good pedigrees. I would think that you are just starting to get serious about collecting and that as time passes your opinion will change. How valuable is your collection? More than the car you drive is worth? More than the house you live in is worth? Those are mile posts that often measure how serious collectors are about collecting.
22nd Dec 2014 23:26 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vitaliy ,
> Yes, of course a pedigree is always done to
> inflate or increase the value of an object or to
> make it look more significant/valuable. That's the
> way the world works. When it comes time for you to
> sell your collection almost certainly you will do
> the same. Even gemstones are given pedigrees where
> possible. Do you keep old labels with your
> specimens? When I started, I didn't do that
> because, well the specimen was the specimen and
> why would I want to keep an old label around when
> I could make my own and a better one. That lasted
> only a few years till I learned that was not the
> way the world worked and those labels added value
> to the specimen. Should I diminish the value of my
> specimens by failing to maintain their pedigree?
> Gradually I came to venerate specimens with good
> pedigrees. I would think that you are just
> starting to get serious about collecting and that
> as time passes your opinion will change. How
> valuable is your collection? More than the car you
> drive is worth? More than the house you live in is
> worth? Those are mile posts that often measure how
> serious collectors are about collecting.
Hopefully it will never come to me having to sell my collection Rock Currier. That is a day I do not look forward to. Interesting that you would ask about the original or old labels. When I first started out I didn't keep many of the labels as I thought I would recognize and remember them later. One of my very first pieces still has an old label though but some starter pieces don't any-more. I recently went through some of them and labelled them with my own label templates but some of them I still can't exactly remember other than the mineral name itself. I keep some of the old labels and labels for other specimens simply due to history and because I am lazy to create a new label for them. Some of the specimens I obtained through geologists/mineralogists in my family didn't have labels and were simply told to me through words the locality/name of species and same for the very early Ukrainian species I obtained.
I can understand appreciating the history and pedigree of a specimen, however if there is a similar piece that is more affordably priced and the only difference is pedigree I will choose the cheaper more affordable option. In the case of my collection I doubt that let's say a hundred years from now my name will add to my Pedigree or increase the value of the specimen. I am not a dealer nor do I have fame and I have only been collecting since the very late 1990's/very early 2000's.
Assigning a value to my collection is simply too early and too difficult at this point. However I will say that in my collecting history I have progressed and developed a finer taste to where I am currently. Before I used to focus on systematic specimens but now have specialized on silver species and platinum based species with also a specialization on native elements primarily. I have grown as a collector but there is still alot for me to learn and develop.
22nd Dec 2014 23:40 UTCDoug Daniels
22nd Dec 2014 23:45 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
22nd Dec 2014 23:46 UTCHolger Hartmaier 🌟
23rd Dec 2014 01:24 UTCBob Harman
This specimen, found in 1913, was part of Dave Wilbur's collection until bought by hi end collector F. John Barlow, now deceased. It was featured in the coffee table mineral book of the Barlow collection. It was pictured on the dust jacket front page and on page 94 with its complete story featured on pages 105 -106. In addition this same example was also featured on the first paper page just inside the front cover, Sheets of this stamp both with and without printing errors and even June 13, 1974 first day covers of this mineral stamp were also featured on the last paper page, next to the back cover of the book. Quite a lot of provenance for this tourmaline example.
I should add that each copy of Barlow's book included an actual tourmaline postage stamp as part of the block of 4 of the 1974 U.S. mineral stamps. The gum was licked to attach the block of 4 stamps to the first paper page of the book and each copy of the book was signed by F. John Barlow. Color reproduction was quite awful with the stamp colors not even coming close to matching the true colors of the tourmaline and quartz of the mineral specimen. CHEERS…..BOB
23rd Dec 2014 03:00 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> The pricing aspect of minerals is definitely a
> major factor determining lo, mid-range and high
> end specimens. However, based on the range of
> prices that are being asked for a given mineral
> in the current market, on what basis would a
> "regulatory commission" determine a fair price?
> Ironically, many professional mineralogists and
> geologists have no interest in mineral collecting
> as a hobby, let alone pay someone for any
> specimen. The posts on this forum show that some
> collectors are interested in specimens that others
> would consider "leaverite". The unknown component
> in this discussion is, regardless of the marked
> asking price, what does the dealer actually get
> for that specimen? If at the end of the day, he is
> able to recover all of his costs and have a
> reasonable profit, then the dealer stays in
> business and is able to keep on with this
> strategy. All that is required is a market base of
> collectors who are willing to meet his price point
> on the specimens provided. On some specimens there
> may be a very high markup, priced at a rate "which
> the market will bear", on others, the margins may
> be less or sale prices may have had to be reduced
> to below cost to generate cash flow.
>
> As collectors, we impose our own values on the
> meanings of lo-mid and high end and what we may
> perceive as being overpriced. For example,
> consider the following hypothetical scenarios
> involving the same specimen having a broad range
> of appeal to both beginner and advanced
> collectors. It doesn't matter what the actual
> mineral is to illustrate my point.
>
> Scenario 1: The mineral is priced in the under $10
> range. A beginning or financially limited
> collector might say, yes, I will buy that one, it
> is affordable and it is a nice addition to my
> collection. A more knowledgeable collector with
> more discretionary spending power may see it and
> say, wow, what a bargain! A well-heeled collector
> may ask the dealer if there are any better
> specimens of the same type available.
>
> Scenario 2: The same mineral is now priced in the
> $10-$100 range. The beginner or financially
> limited collector looks it over and spends some
> time deciding on whether it fits into his budget
> and laments the growing number of "high end
> dealers" in the marketplace. The more
> knowledgeable collector might be happy to get it
> at a "fair price" and tell his friends how
> reasonably priced that dealer is. The well-heeled
> collector decides he can't pass up the bargain and
> buys the specimen knowing he has picked up a
> "sleeper".
>
> Scenario 3: The same specimen is now priced in the
> $1000-$10,000 range. The beginning or financially
> limited collector shakes his head and laments the
> fact that minerals are being priced out of reach
> for the average collector. The more knowledgeable
> collector asks the dealer if he has any similar
> pieces available at less cost. The well-heeled
> collector buys it without hesitation and considers
> it a fair price.
The pricing aspect is indeed important on determining what category a specimen falls under. The trouble with accurately determining a pricing range is that specimens that were previously high-end can become mid-end and low-end through damage or discount/sales of the specimen. Perhaps a pricing range should be applied as follows for specimens:
Low-end: 1-$50
Mid-end: $50-Hundreds of dollars
High-end: High hundreds to low thousands
These are very rough figures and I cannot determine what a specific price range would be also due to the difficulty of specimen damage/discounts/sales and bulk pricing. Perhaps a very rough range would work best and it can be a guideline that dealers can perhaps follow or observe to make pricing competitive and also enjoyable for various collectors. This would allow collectors from lower-end to upper-class being able to pick up specimens in various categories and hierarchy. If a dealer wants to price outside of these guidelines or rough ranges then collectors would be aware of it. I am not trying to insist on developing a price guide or book because that would be close to impossible on non man-made objects due to variety of mineral species even from within the same species.
Perhaps pricing should return to that of the earlier periods before minerals became considered 'art pieces'. As soon as minerals became considered art objects it would begin what I call the "mineral bubble". If I recall correctly in earlier decades even the most high-end specimens would sell for perhaps a few thousand at best. Doug Daniel's example is after the "Mineral art period" so we can already see how the prices jumped quite a bit. The transition period likely occurred in the 1970's over to higher pricing. Here is a link on this subject:
http://wallaceterrycjr.com/2014/07/18/the-zen-of-stephanite-collecting-minerals-in-the-era-of-art/
One thing that should be included in the guidelines is sufficient disclosure of information to the buyer/collector so that they are well informed prior to the purchase. There can be various ways that this can be implemented including the number of high-end specimens recovered from a locality , difficulty of extraction , etc... so locality information could be considered part of this. It is up to both the dealer and the collector to be informed prior to purchase and to have sufficient information disclosed at the time of the transaction or prior to it. Take for example in the Bancroft Gemboree there was a dealer selling Sperrylite from Broken Hammer deposit in Sudbury. The dealer was not aware of any information about the locality or about the specimens other than the locality name and the mineral species name.
I also think that your Scenarios are very realistic and also well thought out here and I agree with them except perhaps for Scenario 3. I would really price it from $100-1000 to make it more realistic and appropriate. Pricing it beyond a few thousand is when minerals become 'art' and that is when the prices become expensive and simply unrealistic.
Reiner Mielke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess it all depends on why you collect.
> Personally I think this pedigree thing is a pile
> of nonsense. The way I see it who owned it
> previously is only useful in determining who to
> straighten out and blame when it turns out the
> mineral was incorrectly identified. From a
> scientific standpoint the pedigree is irrelevant,
> a specimen of freboldite that was owned by Dana is
> no more scientifically significant than one that
> was owned by Mister Nobody. If I had a choice
> between two identical specimens but one was 2X
> more expensive because of the pedigree the choice
> for me is a no-brainer, give me the cheap one.
I completely agree. They are still the same species and nothing about them is different except who owned the specimen. Between those choices I would also choose the cheaper specimen. Pedigree only plays a role or importance somewhat. If it plays a role in pricing then I am drawn away and would choose the cheaper equivalent. After all there is the possibility that the Pedigree may be counterfeited or could be made up. Is there even a way of verifying a pedigree for older or deceased collectors?
23rd Dec 2014 12:20 UTCHarjo Neutkens Manager
Very often high-end mineral specimens (investment specimens) are compared to works of art when it comes to valuation and market structures.
This comparison is being made to justify high prices for unique mineral specimens, comparing the uniqueness of a superb rare specimen to, let's say, a van Gogh sunflower painting.
In a sense this comparison is valid because they both are unique and there is a broad consensus about their respective qualities. This makes them both interesting as an investment tool, especially when the stock market is volatile and/or interest on bank-accounts is low (or next to non existent, like in Europe at the moment).
There are however to major differences.
First: There will be no second van Gogh painting another series of sunflower paintings, neither will the expressionist movement where he was part of re-emerge. When it comes to mineral specimens the difference is that with ongoing mining and on other places erosion the value of a specimen can deflate considerably. For instance (more or less hypothetical); a major mineral X find has been done in the seventies in Congo, the best ever for the species, and a lot of money is paid for them. During the next 30 odd years prices keep going up because no more specimens of mineral X have come out of the region any more. In the end prices are soaring because they are rare old classics. When a new huge pocket containing even far better specimens of mineral X are found, let's say in the year 2000, a couple of meters next to the old find it will seriously deflate the prices for the specimens from the 70s find, because they are of lesser quality and specimens of mineral X have suddenly become much more available.
Secondly; a pedigree is of no importance whatsoever in the art world. It solely comes down to which artist, and the quality of a certain work of art. These two points compared makes me think that putting extra value on the pedigree of a mineral specimen only exists in order to make an extra buck on the specimen. But I can be wrong though. There are still creatures walking around who think a Ford Mustang once driven by Marlon Brando is something different from exactly the same Ford Mustang NOT driven by Marlon Brando, although it's from the same year, has same colour, same interior, same extras, same engine etc etc :-)
23rd Dec 2014 12:24 UTCRock Currier Expert
If you love your minerals you will probably never come to the point where you need to sell them. However by the time you reach 70 it will occur to you that they will not be with you forever or for that matter even all that much longer. Although I have known at least one person who loved his minerals but had no desire to see them cared for after his death other than whatever provisions the state had for a persons possessions when they die intestate. But most people want to make some provisions for the disposition of their specimens. This will happen also to you. Worst case is that you do nothing and your specimens fall into the hands of someone who knows nothing about specimens other than they are rocks and in the way and throws them out on the dump. By the time you reach old age you will not (in most cases) want or be able to do what dealers do to get the maximum amount of money for your specimens which usually includes using their pedigree to increase their value. At any rate what usually usually happens is that the collector sells his collection to a mineral dealer or gives it to a dealer to sell for them or in other cases give their collection to a museum or other institution. When you are young you never think about such things. You think you don't need labels because you think you will always remember what they are, where they are from, who you got them from and how much you paid for them. I used to be just like this, but as you have apparently already discovered, things do eventually slip from your memory and you really need to write that stuff down if you want to retain that information.
23rd Dec 2014 13:56 UTCNorman King 🌟 Expert
I don't remember the details, but a classic sports car once owned by Steve McQueen recently sold at auction for three times the going price for that year and model of car. The open market determines value. It's just like asking how much a house is worth--well, it's worth whatever someone will pay you for it at any given time. (Watch out for "bubbles"!). I suspect a scrappy piece of pyrite once owned Teddy Roosevelt or Elizabeth Taylor would go for a hundred times or more than the going price for scrappy pyrite because many people might want to have either of those connections to history and culture. It would have to be properly documented, of course, which is also required to get maximum price for antiques and paintings. I doubt that many minerals have that kind of documentation, except for estate sales, and then just as to the recently expired owner. I don't think the value of anything I once owned will be increased by that fact, but a lot of people are into genealogy and might pay a bit more just to have the provenance, whatever it is claimed to be.
As for me, I recently acquired a specimen of stromeyerite once owned by Col. T. G. Williams of Bodin, Cornwall, England (http://www.mindat.org/photo-648584.html). The specimen isn't much, but I looked up Col. Williams on the internet, and his web page tells of his experiences in WWII, when he was captured by Italian soldiers and imprisoned. But he and some buddies escaped and traveled northward through Italy, into the Alps where they sneaked past opposing forces to cross over into Switzerland, ultimately joining up with Allied forces. I smile every time I see the piece, and my imagination and spirit are rejuvenated. I got a real bargain with that one, and it's high-value to me. (I think it was about $35 plus shipping in an on-line auction, but I'd have to check my records.)
Moral: Money isn't everything, except to people for whom money is everything, and you don't need to worry about them.
23rd Dec 2014 15:14 UTCWilliam W. Besse Expert
medium range = sometimescanaffordite
high range = cannotaffordite
extremely high range = shootthemoonite
I believe, as been stated by others in this thread, that the ranges are up to the individual and change as the individual changes in taste and purchase power.
Bill
23rd Dec 2014 16:02 UTCHolger Hartmaier 🌟
Great summary! Have those names been approved by IMA yet? :-)
23rd Dec 2014 17:09 UTCAdam Kelly
In response to Alex's comment, Vitaliy wrote
"If they are unable to afford pricier or more high-end material/specimens then they may resort to field collecting"
Oh the horror!
I personally think that would be a wonderful thing.
On the discussion of pedigree and field collecting.
Harjo has some of the most beautiful self collected Austrian emeralds I have ever seen.
If one ever ended up in my collection, I would be quite proud of the fact that he collected it.
That said, i would not expect that to add actual resale value to the specimen.
P.S. all this is in good humor,and i don't try to offend.
If you are having fun, then you're doing it right!
Adam K
23rd Dec 2014 18:53 UTCHarjo Neutkens Manager
Adam has a point here.
btw, You should see the Fadenquartzes I collected over the last months, Waziristan quality but from a lesser known locality in Belgium...
23rd Dec 2014 19:16 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert
that came out of Gilbert Adams personal collection along with Adam's personal label!! In this case, because of the provenance I was prepared to pay 2x or 3x or more than what I actually paid. Gilbert Gauthier had a very reasonable price to my utter delight. So maybe provenance is not so important to you as an individual but under the right circumstances it can be very important.
Ron
23rd Dec 2014 21:03 UTCNelse Miller
24th Dec 2014 04:15 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just a few of observations: First, I believe that
> most "high end" collectors love and treasure their
> minerals but, being human, there is some
> competition going on here. If your fellows all
> have Ferrari's, maybe you should get a Bugatti
> Veyron.
I wouldn't be surprised to see upper class collectors enjoy their specimens just as much as lower and middle class collectors. However it would be honest and fair to say that some purchase specimens of a high price simply to compete or as investment purposes. There would also be possibilities for upper-class collectors collecting simply for bragging and show. I have several hobbies myself and another one of this hobby has similar instances where 'hobbyists' purchase expensive "XYZ" simply for bragging rights. I wouldn't be surprised though to find this a common occurrence in other hobbies. One would equate also higher prices and pedigree to also competition and bragging unless the specimen is a high-end purchase that is kept muted with little announcement/advertisement.
Second, from reading many issues of Min.
> Rec. and R & M, it seems that many of the
> "important" specimens spend their time being
> bought, sold and traded around within a small
> group of museums, collectors and dealers.
Perhaps the specimens change hands so frequently and commonly due to pedigree or provenance that the collectors or dealers think may add to the value. After all if you have a world-class specimen why not keep it rather than sell it?
> Lastly, being a collector of modest means and mobility, I
> buy what I like and what I can afford. I am
> currently entranced by a limpid, twinned calcite
> thumbnail specimen which might be worth $5.00, but
> it is beautiful.
I agree with this. I am also a collector of modest means and a younger collector so while I cannot afford high-end specimens I do not mind looking at them. I think the saying goes as this "Looking is free". While it is good to look at a specimen and receive some free eye-candy it becomes a problem when you notice exorbitant specimen pricing which could be attributed to many factors.
25th Dec 2014 15:37 UTCWayne Corwin
Well Harjo,,, if you post them,,, we could see them,, and we would love to see them :-D
25th Dec 2014 17:57 UTCTom V
Mid range = 2 or 3 zeroes
High End = 4 or more zeroes
26th Dec 2014 09:54 UTCcascaillou
26th Dec 2014 11:28 UTCKnut Eldjarn 🌟 Manager
Thanks for many commendable postings. Being a scientifically oriented systematic collector and field-collector at heart, I can still enjoy and purchase specimens in all price ranges for the collection. The discussion so far has had a clear collector`s focus on the mineral specimen market. I do believe the segmentation into low-/middle-/high-end specimens and customers only makes sense for dealers. As in any other trade you have to know your customers and what they are willing to pay before procuring the goods you are going to sell and setting up the cost-structure of your business. In this context it is clear that there is an expanding, international market-segment for specimens at 10-100K and above. It is not only in the US that the rich are becoming imensely more wealthy. China is approaching 2 mill housholds with a yearly income of more than 1 mill. USD - more than the combined number of such housholds in Western Europe and second only to the US with about 5 mill such households. Displayable natural objects also rock and mineral specimens has in many cultures been one of many targets for the use of surplus income. If only a small fraction of the wealthy households take an interest in exceptional mineral specimens, the demand for such will rapidly be higher than the limited supply. Rising prices for the best is a natural consequence. With low interest rates and lack of profitable investment alternatives it is not suprising that some also look upon mineral specimens as an investment.If you were going to make a living from buying and selling mineral specimens, it would of course be tempting to try to cater to these high-end customers and try to develop this market by attracting new customers also by promoting the investment potential in mineral specimens.
Luckily most of us are attracted to minerals and mineralogy for other reasons which allows us to enjoy collections built by self-collecting, trading and modest purchases. But we should welcome any trend that increases the interest in preserving also the best mineral specimens sold in the high-end segment of the market. We should be careful about duscussing pricing based on a notion of a "fair" price. For one, a lot of the specimens on the market comes from poor countries were people are beeing exploited to be able to offer us cheap goods of all kinds. The problems with fairness in pricing of minerals is not the astronomical prices asked for some exceptional specimens but rather the ridiculously low prices of i.e. Indian zeolites. The extraction and preparation of many of the specimens would have resulted in at least a 10-fold price if paid by US, European or Chinese standards. But with an emerging level of education and better living conditions the costs of labour has been increasing much more rapidly in many of the specimen producing countries than in Europe or the US.This explains much of the steep price increase in minerals i.e. from China. Dealers of any kind just increase prices by percentages and a higher purchasing cost thus rapidly inflates the price to collectors in Europe or the USA. In this way mineral specimens might be considered a good investment since future prices will reflect the fast growing economy of many of the specimen producing countries.
What each of us consider a low-, middle- and high- price mineral specimen is subject to our own collection focus and interest. It may be very different from what dealers consider the prices in the low-, middle- and high- segment of the mineral market.
Knut
26th Dec 2014 12:07 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
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 7, 2024 23:21:57
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 7, 2024 23:21:57
Monteponi Mine, Iglesias, South Sardinia Province, Sardinia, Italy