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

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

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

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

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

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

GeneralWhich of the 50 states is, in your opinion, the mineralogically most challenged?

6th Oct 2014 15:55 UTCBob Harman

From a collector standpoint, the past few weeks the Mindat message board has dealt with mineralogically rich states and not so rich states. So I pose the question: In everyone's opinion from a collector's standpoint, which is the most challenging of the 50 states for finding collector quality minerals? And what might your top 5 states be for being the most challenging to find collector quality minerals. Remember the collector examples do not have to be large or showy; they can be small and/or ugly rarities, but they should be desired as collectible specimens. And remember if there is only 1 mineral (such as calcite) found in the state, but many great examples are found, the state might be considered a mineralogically "rich" state.

Personally, given a choice, I might plan to NOT live in any of your top 5 candidates!!! Your thoughts?? CHEERS…..BOB

6th Oct 2014 17:22 UTCVitya

Bob that is actually a great question. I was recently reading about Texas on these forums and I am somewhat inclined to agree that Texas is not well known as a state for mineral collecting. I would also like to add Vermont , Louisiana ,Alabama and Idaho which aren't as well known either in my opinion. These states also don't have many photos of minerals in mindat but have some species listed without photos.

In terms of being more well known and having a variety of species available for the collector I would choose: Montana , Colorado , Utah , California , and New Mexico. Some historic states are Illinois , Missouri. The East Coast has some notable states as well including from Maine , New Jersey , and New York. Nevada produces some well known species and has great gold (Olignhouse) along with excellent Orpiment (rivaling Shimen specimens from China).

I have lately been getting more into American mineral collecting as well and currently focus on Utah, Montana and Colorado minerals however I don't see too many specimens coming out of Vermont , Louisiana , Alabama , Idaho and a few other states. The states I listed in the second paragraph are more frequently encountered and less mineralogically challenged in my opinion. This is a difficult analysis because I am a Canadian collector but collect worldwide minerals with expertise being primarily Bancroft mineral collecting and Parry Sound/Sudbury district's.

6th Oct 2014 18:41 UTCChris Stefano Expert

Mississippi, North Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska come to mind as particularly poor collecting.

6th Oct 2014 19:20 UTCErik Vercammen Expert

Kansas used to be a part of the famous "Tri State District".

6th Oct 2014 19:20 UTCAndrew Haighton

Hi Bob;

My vote is for West Virginia, which although it is somewhat mountainous, is represented by only 80 photos on Mindat for the whole state. Of these photos more than 75% are micros, and from one locality, so the rest of the state is only 20 photos or less in representation. Hawaii might also be a bit tough to get minerals.

Some of the states that do not have a problem mineralogically include California, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, for which I have many.

6th Oct 2014 19:31 UTCHarold (Hal) Prior Expert

No one has mentioned my choice - FLORIDA!

6th Oct 2014 20:16 UTCEric Graff Expert

If we can use the number of photos uploaded to this site a guide, the five most mineralogically challenged states are:

North Dakota = 8 mineral photos

Mississippi = 10 mineral photos

Louisiana = 21 mineral photos

Delaware = 23 mineral photos

Nebraska = 40 mineral photos

6th Oct 2014 21:54 UTCSam Linton

Florida hardly has anything collector worthy unless it is somehow tied to fossils. Ohio is in a similar boat, though it does have fluorite, celesite, and pyrite sites. I guess you could argue that the rootbeer fluorite is great, but that is about it... unless you get into the mineral/fossil combo again, which I would say they have world class stuff in geodized fossils. I lived and hounded in both states.

Many would argue that Maryland is pretty lacking. I have hounded in Maryland for about a decade and would mostly agree with that except when it comes to older specimens (pre 1980s). However, isn't that semi true about many states? Given that hounding in Maryland is mostly in deep quarries now, you can't expect to find collector level stuff anymore. They don't even have the mineral/fossil combo thing going for them :)

Bob, I'm with you... I want to find a really good state to retire in... One that you can branch out from, so hammering out the best ones is a good idea. I'm thinking maybe northern New Mexico or southern Colorado. I like crystal specimens you can see with the naked eye and fluorescent minerals, so that is important with my decision. Regardless, I have about 15 years to go, so I have plenty of time to decide.

6th Oct 2014 23:26 UTCSteve Federico

Hello from Ohio (yawn)We missed the boat with simple glacial till.No agates from Lake Superior here.Way to go my neighbor Michigan hog,up the good stuff for yourself.I did find Titanite in a rock here which just goes to show a good vulture always finds something to eat.Thank You........Steve

7th Oct 2014 00:21 UTCMike Royal

come on now ohio isnt that deprived your just not hunting hard enough 866 photos representing 39 differant minerals in mindats photo galliers 57 valid minerals. 2 type localities listed id say we are doing quite well and allso for the glacial till heck that gives us lotts of other stuff that got pushed here to hunt like garnets for one

mike

7th Oct 2014 00:39 UTCPaul Brandes 🌟 Manager

I am a bit surprised that some say Kansas should be on this list, given that the southeast corner of the state is home to the Tri-State District, one of the more famous mineral localities in the U.S. Nor would I place Texas in this list as there are plenty of good minerals in the state to be had, but finding them is what can be the challenge. To be honest, I don't like lists such as these because each state has their own unique set of circumstances that, while maybe not producing "collector quality minerals", have specimens that are geologically important and tell a story about Earth's past. Even the most seemingly boring states can be very interesting geologically if one wants to take the time and study them.

7th Oct 2014 00:49 UTCJim Robison

Idaho is definitely not a mineral deficient state. World famous pyromorphite and cerussite from Bunker Hill and other localities, beautiful smoky quartz and blue beryl (aquamarine) and other classic pegmatite species, gold, ludlamite, rare earth minerals, and many others make this state a classic collectors choice. The list goes on and on.

7th Oct 2014 00:51 UTCBob Harman

Thanks for all your replies! At this point my 5 top collector mineral deprived states would include North Dakota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Louisiana and either Delaware or Maryland. North Dakota might have much new found oil, but, for me, is otherwise particularly mineralogically challenged and leads as my most mineral collector barren state.

I am very surprised that Ohio was mentioned and Mike R also recognized this. Altho Ohio does not boast colorful pegmatite minerals or gemstones or precious metals, it is very fertile field collecting territory for many world class mineral examples in sedimentary environments. Fabulous fluorites (including some from long closed quarries), calcite, celestine, sphalerite, pyrite, and marcasite all are very abundant and collectible. Idaho also really surprised me as most collectors would consider it quite mineralogically rich. Kansas also surprised me as it was mentioned that it was part of the Tristate Mining District and some very collectible examples came from there. Hopefully more opinions yet to come. CHEERS……BOB

7th Oct 2014 01:33 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert

Game, set, match, I also have quite a few great specimens from Ohio so by all means strike it from the challenged list!

Wyoming on the other hand . . . just one sad "Youngiite". Funny, I just today started to account for this to see what coverage I might have for a 50 state display just from my general collection. So far I'm good with the west side, but still need something a bit more interesting from Texas other than a tiny Chambersite or a rusty looking quartz grouping from Llano County. Officially a challenged state, despite the great REE sites (which I've no samples of sadly).

Also, I felt the need to chime in for Pennsylvania as well for one of the states which hardly falls short on good mineral specimens, especially when you consider they almost all occur within the eastern half of it. :)

7th Oct 2014 02:30 UTCMatt Neuzil Expert

I think what some persons may be confused by is states with a lack of minerals and states that do not have much opportunity to collect that mineral "wealth"

Maryland as was stated I have not collected much in but seems sites are closing up. Same with ohio I think. It's hard to get into but a few sites. You have to be a member in some club or something. Even now these days being in a club doesn't guarantee access as there is always some idiot that does something wrong at a quarry and from then on access is forever denied.

Florida except for those agatized corals I'd say is a good one along with west virginia unless you like coal which isnt a mineral. Hawaii probably has few places of great interest.

7th Oct 2014 03:36 UTCDana Slaughter 🌟 Expert

North Dakota and Mississippi get my vote. California is probably the most diverse in terms of species I suppose.

7th Oct 2014 03:39 UTCDean Allum Expert

My vote for the least collectable state is Mississippi. I have never seen a mineral from this state.

Since North Dakota is currently being over-run by geologists, it's status will probably change. Florida has the fantastic Vivianite and Wavellite phosphates. I have actually considered a collecting trip to the awesome quarries in Ohio.

While growing up in Michigan's Lower Peninsula, there was nothing worthwhile to collect. While Michigan lost the Toledo war of 1835 to Ohio, the U.S. congress granted it a consolation prize of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan with untold mineral riches.

Should we also consider a mineral density contest (collectable minerals per square mile)? In that case, Rhode Island might actually come out on top.

After this thread, let's hear a similar Mineralogy Challenged contest for Canadian Provenances.

-Dean Allum

7th Oct 2014 04:01 UTCDana Slaughter 🌟 Expert

Lower Michigan has some fabulous localities---the classic Dana locality for celestine and the best sulfur in the US is at Maybee. Nearby quarries have produced exceptional calcite, celestine, fluorite and sulfur. The Cheney quarry at Bellevue produced some very good calcites with sulfides (marcasite and pyrite) and even vivianite crystals---a few decent barytes too. The quarry at Bayport has produced some excellent, though small, millerite in calcite geodes. I've found fossil crinoid calyxes with sharp dolomite and chalcopyrite within near Alpena. The old gypsum mine in the Grand Rapids suburb of Wyoming has produced some superb water clear gypsum crystal specimens---some with a beautiful orangish color due to iron oxides in the underlying massive gypsum. Some nice pyrite balls have come out of the Antrim shale in the northern Lower Peninsula and, of course, some fantastic halite crystals from right under Detroit.

Lower Michigan cannot compare to the wealth of the UP but admittedly few places do!

7th Oct 2014 04:19 UTCJoseph Polityka Expert

Hi, interesting discussion.

There is one important flaw in most of your comparisons and that is the size of each state compared to another. Rhode Island And Delaware are our smallest states so it is reasonable to assume that those states would have fewer species in collections than California which is almost 700 miles north to south. Also, some states are mostly sedimentary rock, which limits the number of collectible species.

Most states in the east are well past their mining heyday but that does not mean great minerals were never found there. I think more research needs to be done on current conditions and availability of minerals as we speak. You are not comparing apples to apples and would be shocked as to what is still being found in worked out areas.

Best,

Joe

7th Oct 2014 07:51 UTCRock Currier Expert

In our database.

North Dakota 37 entries listed. 18 valid minerals.

Nebraska 114 entries listed. 65 valid minerals.

Mississippi 43 entries listed. 23 valid minerals.

Louisiana 74 entries listed. 54 valid minerals. 1 type locality (valid mineral).

Delaware 64 entries listed. 38 valid minerals.

Rhode Island 283 entries listed. 149 valid minerals.

Hawaii 120 entries listed. 81 valid minerals. 1 type locality (valid mineral).

Puerto Rico 47 entries listed. 35 valid minerals. 1 type locality (valid mineral).

Palmyra Atoll 50 small islands (a US territory) no minerals or localities listed

Guam 11 entries listed. 7 valid minerals. 1 type locality (valid mineral).

Northern Mariana Islands 11 entries listed. 6 valid minerals.

United States Virgin Islands 95 entries listed. 68 valid minerals.

American Samoa, No locality for this in mindat that I could find.

Baker Island and other small islands (I didn't take the time to run them all down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States#Incorporated_organized_territories

7th Oct 2014 11:24 UTCSam Linton

I believe Bob's point was to have a state where one could find stuff now, so he can hound in his retirement. I would not argue that nearly all states have produced great stuff in the past, but the only way to hound in the past is to buy a collection... fun, but not as fun as finding it yourself :)

Maryland is almost restricted to quarry digs and even then most don't let you in. There are so deep now that they are well past their mineralized zone. I typically have to hound in the old material they set aside decades ago to get some display worthy stuff (on a Maryland scale, not necessarily collector grade). True, you can hound in the little forgotten areas, but most of those are illegal sites as they site on park land. Or, they have been covered over by develpments. The same goes for Ohio. Florida lacks specimens in general and good ones are no longer being found. I've been to the big mines and they don't allow you to collect. The equipment operators can jump in the wash pit if they see something like a dino bone, but they are about the only ones who get any action. I don't blame any of the companies though... many don't close operations so they can't have people walking around. The ones that do close have to bring in a dude on the weekend and that sucks for him. Plus, we are safety risks.

7th Oct 2014 13:01 UTCBob Harman

Actually SAM, you have it wrong. My point was just which states are, and have always been, collector mineral specimen challanged. If a state produced great specimens 100 or 50 years ago and today all the sites are paved over, I would still consider it a "good" state. I should have specified that in my original posting along with a brief note about geographically small states vs the larger states. For example, Rhode Island, our smallest state, has the Hopkinton Amethyst site while much larger North Dakota doesn't seem to have much of anything.

All these replies still are of interest to me because of the odd responses and opinions. Ohio and Idaho (the GEM STATE) really now ????? Lower Michigan; lots of mineral collecting sites there as well!

BTW I am and have been retired for several years now….if I were just about to retire with the active hobby of field collecting minerals (or fossils), I might think about places to live or avoid. In Indiana the geodes, which I collect, occur 15 minutes - 1 hour from where I now live. I used to live and work 4+ hours North of these collecting areas. CHEERS……BOB

7th Oct 2014 13:32 UTCSpencer Ivan Mather

Why Florida, I have five different mineral specimens from Florida..

Spencer.

7th Oct 2014 16:29 UTCSusan Robinson

New York State have a big diversity of minerals, since it has a big diversity of geological environments.

Susan Robinson

7th Oct 2014 19:18 UTCDennis McCoy

I,m surprised no one has mentioned Hawaii as being mineral deficient. It might be a great place to collect sand or lava; anything else takes a microscope to find.

7th Oct 2014 19:37 UTCMatt Ciranni

Idaho is not minerallogically challenged by any means, rather there are many, many issues (which I wont go into) which make it difficult, if not impossible, for amateurs to collect any of the minerals that are here. But our lead minerals that have come out of the mines in northern Idaho, as well as the cobalt minerals and vivianite specimens out of the Blackbird district, are second to none- its just; you can't collect them yourself.

I would think the the most minerallogically challenged states would be somewhere with predominatly sedimentary geology, such as the Gulf states and Florida, but it sounds like even these states have produced specimens of some type.

7th Oct 2014 22:40 UTCSteve Federico

Wow it's nice to see people defending my home state of Ohio.My opinion comes from what other people have said about closed areas to collect parks etc.Plus all that sedimentary rock is below us which means you need quarries to get to anything.Glacial erratics are fun I posted one in id section recently.No interest here for rocks though which kind of shows how little there is here from collecting side of things.....Steve

7th Oct 2014 22:45 UTCLuke Osborne

In my travels, Delaware has been the worst and North Carolina has been the best.

8th Oct 2014 00:26 UTCEric D. Fritzsch 🌟

Nebraska is perhaps the most mineralogically challenged. Many of the supposed rarer species are from deep underground, meteorites, or sulfate crusts in shale. Take a look at the photos on mindat--they aren't impressive. Mississippi, North Dakota, Delaware, and Hawaii may also be mineralogic deserts, but Nebraska is the least collectible. Even outcrops of rock are rare in eastern Nebraska. --a mineral collector from Omaha, NE

8th Oct 2014 04:05 UTCMatt Neuzil Expert

Bob- Thanks for clearing that up. I think some of us may have been confused we were giving an opinion on exactly.

Steve- What is that green & black piece of rock?

8th Oct 2014 04:49 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert

I have only ten specimens from Delaware (eleven if you count the vein of smoky quartz in one of my houses foundation stones). Most localities are at the very northern tip of the state, many were one time finds and most have never been heavily collected at, so abundant material is not generally available. Even William Jefferies collected at Chandlers Hollow and created one of his famous handwritten folios filled with examples, one of the few popularly collected sites besides the Sillmanite localities.

More recently Delaware produced very good specimens of schorl crystals. Up to just under an inch thick, black glassy sharply defined with excellent terminations but it was a construction site and opened for only a short period of time (good luck finding someone willing to part with a good specimen now).

Not sure I would say Delaware was as much "mineralogically challenged" some other states, rather it has fairly old and "one time" localities from which specimens are now quite scarce and uncommonly found in collections. Despite having no mines other than some iron ore pits, It has produce some good material, just rarely in any abundance.

MRH

8th Oct 2014 11:10 UTCSam Linton

Not sure why people still talk about finds decades old. If you extract a state's mineral wealth, isn't it now that much less mineral rich? I'm not saying that a state that had been mined a lot is now mineral poor, because there are still deposits with some mineral specimens left, but I am saying that you can't compare a state's historical mineral condition to another state's present mineral condition. It isn't fair. That is why I am stating that you might wish to discuss the current mineral condition of states only, whether you wish to collect there or not... unless you have discovered a way to travel in time and can collect about 40-50 years in the past :)

8th Oct 2014 14:06 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert

"Not sure why people still talk about finds decades old. If you extract a state's mineral wealth, isn't it now that much less mineral rich? "

Sam,

Bob already tried to explain that you misunderstood the intent of his inquiry, and that this was NOT a question about field collecting potential, but rather which state always had the fewest mineral finds. The potential for digging for them right now is rather immaterial to the intent of his original inquiry, "which state is the most mineral poor, or never really produced much".

I think it's a great question and would like to see it stay on point!

MRH

8th Oct 2014 14:27 UTCSam Linton

The title is "Which of the 50 states, in your opinion, is the most mineralogically most challenged?" IS = present. It is not a misinterpretation.

My point was to suggest that past performance should not be a factor in this because a heavily depleted state is just that... heavily depleted. It can't be considered mineral rich if those minerals are gone. If a state merely closed a lot of sites and great mineral specimens are likely still present (as Bob suggested), then it should be considered in the discussion. Otherwise, you ARE comparing states in an unfair manner. Comparing states in a historical manner would produce significantly different results.

8th Oct 2014 14:55 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert

"Actually SAM, you have it wrong. My point was just which states are, and have always been, collector mineral specimen challanged. If a state produced great specimens 100 or 50 years ago and today all the sites are paved over, I would still consider it a "good" state. "

This is Bobs inquery. If you want to discuss it from a different perspective, by all means do so but please start another thread for that.

8th Oct 2014 15:02 UTCBob Harman

YES !!!! The word "IS" might be a bit ambiguous as to time frame, but MARK has it right. So, SAM, if you want to discuss this further as to which states originally were great and no longer are as great due to development and extinction of many of the collector mineral localities, by all means start a new thread. I probably will add to it. CHEERS…..BOB

8th Oct 2014 15:32 UTCJohannes Swarts

Just a pitch for the Green Mountain State (Vermont), often neglected in favor of neighboring states...

While many collectors are familiar with the pyrite/magnetite specimens from Chester, VT and the grossular/vesuvianite/etc from Belvidere Mountain, very few realize that Vermont can also produce some very interesting micro minerals.

In Windham County (where I grew up), I have found 27 different species in good to excellent micromounts. Before anyone starts yawning, with a comment about "...probably common minerals...", I can lay claim to finding at least 3 REE carbonates; anatase; harmotome and other zeolites; cerussite in micro pockets in gneiss; filiform pyrite; and possibly kainosite-(Y). All localities are a few miles from each other, and access is unrestricted - mostly roadcuts.

I have some ideas about other parts of the state to investigate - I suspect there is much more out there...

Thanks,

Hans

8th Oct 2014 22:35 UTCKeith Wood

Sam,

I'm not sure why quarries would be "well past their mineralized zone" if they are in metamorphic rocks, which surely is true of many Maryland quarries. There is no reason quarries in metamorphic rocks wouldn't have goodies at any depth.

I used to live in Hickory NC. One day I went to the quarry there, which had been operating for eighteen years and was 260 feet deep. A few collectors had been in there previously over the years and not found anything, although how they missed the big stilbite veins in the north end of the quarry I'll never know. Anyway, in year 18 I found the stilbite veins. I collected a lot of that, and developed a good relationship with the quarry manager. I had virtually free access to the place. When I would get tired of collecting stilbite I would look around other areas. The whole place is metamorphic rocks, and there were several additional mineralizing environments. There were metamorphic veins with quartz, rose quartz, muscovite crystals, garnets, ilmenite, plagioclase, chlorite, schorl, rutile, ankerite, siderite, calcite, titanite, apatite, allanite, rutile pseudos of ilmenite, pyrrhotite, magnetite, biotite. Most of these could be found as nice crystals over time.

There were medium temperature veins with prehnite, epidote, fluorite, magnetite, stilbite, chabazite, apophyllite, pyrite, babingtonite, and even sphalerite and molybdenite! Most of these came as nice crystals at times. The big stilbite veins also contained quartz, calcite, laumontite, pyrite, chalcedony, and two other unidentified minerals.

There were pegmatites with coarse plagioclase, quartz, big muscovite, biotite, and huge allanite crystals a foot long.

And there was a freak occurrence where some of these veins crossed a pegmatite that produced pink apophyllite, calcite crystals, plagioclase crystals, sharp muscovite crystals, and NC's first occurrence of kainosite - Y

My point is that it took 18 years for anyone to find something of interest in that place and now it is known as a great locaility in the region. All those veins and stuff formed at much greater depths in the earth, and came close to the surface only because of erosion. There is every reason to believe the next few miles of rock beneath the quarry contain similar stuff.

Don't write off quarries in metamorphic rocks. They can have goodies at any depth. They might not have the range of minerals that the Hickory quarry has, but there's no reason to believe things would get worse with depth. If you can get access, a trip every couple years to see what has turned up may just result in a great new find.

9th Oct 2014 00:05 UTCSteve Federico

Dear Matt,I don't know what green rock is.I posted it recently in id forum as Lizardite? I think Serpentine for sure.Please check it out.This got me thinking about glacial erratics and states that have them.They are mined and used in construction type operations,landscaping etc.A wealth if you will for the state but not direct minerals.Now what about Lake Superior Agates?Is agate considered a mineral wealth?If it is then Wisconsin and Michigan have a lot of ranking if from nothing else but them since glacial till and lake front in these states are about the only states with wealth size amounts.Agate is a semi-precious gemstone still maybe.......Steve

10th Oct 2014 18:47 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert

I finished looking through my general collection and here's what states never got any representation as a matter of general collecting (I do have a bias towards the northeast states, so perhaps Delaware would normally have been empty too).

Hawaii

North Dakota

Nebraska

Iowa

Louisiana

Mississippi

Florida

South Carolina

West Virginia

Rhode Island

(Texas, Wyoming & South Dakota came in under the wire with just one or two specimens each)

14th Nov 2014 02:46 UTCStephen Pegler

I vote for Nebraska as the most mineralogically challenged state. I used to live in Eastern Nebraska, Omaha specifically. Mineral collecting in Eastern Nebraska involves calcite, calcite, calcite, and then more calcite in old limestone quarries. None of it very impressive, just little solution vugs. Maybe some fossil shells. Oh, there is limestone quarry north of Omaha that penetrated a black shale layer that did have really good marcasite concretions but that was a very rare exception. Eastern Nebraska is covered with dirt, specifically loess. It's great for growing corn but not for collecting minerals unless you collect silt. I don't think that a metallic mineral has ever been mined in Nebraska. There are almost no natural exposures of bedrock that I knew of. The other problem with collecting in Nebraska is that there is almost no public land - it's all farms and a few towns and cities, all private land.

I guess there is some agate collecting way out in Western Nebraska but I never got there. Once you drive that far, you might as well go to the Black Hills or Colorado.

But I got started mineral collecting there when I was a kid. Then got to do some collecting in the upper peninsula of Michigan. Finally, I moved to Arizona - PARADISE! Lots of public land, lots of mountains with exposed rock, mines, mines, mines! Sure, there are always access problems getting into operating and old mines, Forest Service Nazi's, etc. but, compared to Nebraska, wow!

14th Nov 2014 03:25 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

The number of species recorded for a region is, as Joe points out, proportional to its geographic area and diversity of its geology. However there is another important factor, namely the number of collectors and mineralogists among its population. The longer and more intensely an area has been studied, the more species will be recorded.

If North Dakota or the Northern Mariana islands had a group of collectors as fanatical as those who concentrate on Franklin, Mont Saint Hilaire or the Clara mine, the number of species found would undoubtedly grow. Likewise when comparing countries - The Czech Republic and Germany, for example, are much more intensely studied than Nigeria or Nepal. Mindat lists reflect this skewed amount of study.

14th Nov 2014 05:07 UTCDouglas Merson 🌟 Expert

Hawaii is not totally devoid of minerals as long as you like micros. I have 82 specimens representing 20 species from Oahu, all self collected. One of the more interesting localities was the Moiliili Quarry on the UH campus. It was a nepheline - melilite basalt. Unfortunately, not much of the rock was exposed when I was stationed there from 1975 to 1978. A parking garage and athletic complex had been built over most of it.

9th Aug 2016 20:45 UTCJonelle DeFelice

Massachusetts.

Open locations seem very limited (and too far from home). As a beginner trying to learn, I have been VERY disappointed in the lack of info and collections online for MA. There are very few specimens for sale that I have found, and even at the few shows I have attended, MA specimens are few and far between. (The ones I like, of course, are beyond my budget)

Also, if I may give my 2-cents: Judging a state's mineral-challenge level by the photos here may not be a good idea, because, as I always say, the Internet is USELESS for me when no one with the same interests shares stuff online.

If it wasn't for people like Peter Cristofono I tend to wonder just how many mineral photos/info my state would have here. Not every collector posts info.

Here's a different way to look at my point: I am a railfan, and I can tell you that there are areas of this state with TONS of trains, but NO railfans with cameras who post online or submit to magazines. That doesn't mean those areas don't have trains to watch/photograph. They just don't have any railfans around, and so seem to not have activity.

Just sayin'...

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 26, 2024 04:18:19

Go to top of page