Panasqueira

Hi,
I noticed that there were some inconsistencies in the designation of Panasqueira mines.
We are talking about a group of several mines, a large area belonging to different municipalities.

Add a locality like Panasqueira Mines, and all the mines as sub-localities would have been more correct, but we have the problem of the vast area, belonging to different municipalities...
So i added all the mines in the corresponding locations, mostly in São Jorge da Beira and Aldeia de São Francisco de Assis.

Then something is unresolved, the following location:
[www.mindat.org]
The list of the minerals concerns essentially the Barroca Grande Mine (http://www.mindat.org/loc-2587.html).
The same with the specimens we see here or in the market (apart some cassiterite specimens who came from Vale da Ermida Mine:[www.mindat.org] ).
I think those that have descriptions which mention Barroca Grande Mine can be restored, the others, we may ask to the people...

Cheers,
Pedro Alves

Pedro,

you're talking about Panasqueira and put into question the classification of thousands of specimens in many collections around the world.

Whatever the reason or not, matters of this magnitude require much thought and some discussion before doing whatever it has to be done.

Again I think the details should be mentioned in the description of the “mother” locality.

There is a portuguese forum in Mindat which should serve as antechamber to these kind of issues...

Cheers

Hi Rui,
this is not a question of details, but accuracy.
I don't consider these actions a preciousness, I don't agree with the idea that this put in question the classification «...of thousands of specimens in many collections around the world...» on the other hand, i see this as an advantage (more accurate and correct classification).
More, i see this as one of the purposes of this database. I don't think mitigating information is correct , especially when we know that can correct errors, and that's the case.

Besides that, in this particular case, the name : Barroca Grande is well known to everyone. Panasqueira is the name of the first mine, the one who make so popular this location.
But, the specimens in the market are not from Panasqueira, but from Barroca Grande (almost all). It will not be correct, or even imperative to clarify this situation?

The question of origin may be debatable, even if there are not many doubts. But the correct location is not.
This one: [www.mindat.org] is uncorrect.


But, that's only my opinion.

Cheers,
Pedro Alves

Hi again,
returning to the idea of putting more accurate information in the details, i think it is wiser to be the other way.

A 'real' case: Folgosinho Quarry.
First
It's not a quarry, it's a mine
Second
Even if we change quarry to mine, what we have then: Folgosinho mine. Right, but they are a lot there.
The place wo everybody know at and as Folgosinho is : Sítio do Castelo Mine.
Now, we can introduce in the details of the 'repaired' locality:
popularly known among mineral collectors as: Folgosinho Quarry.
Isn't this a better option?
would be better to leave everything as it is only because everyone knows by this or that name? Or because we have to change our labels?

Sorry, i don't think so.

Cheers,
Pedro Alves



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2012 01:11AM by Pedro Alves.

Beside being the village where the mine office is located, Barroca Grande is also one mine entry, located near the ore treatment plant. It gives acess to level '0' and '1' (I think) of the mine. It's not in use for the last 30 or more years.

So, to be real accurate, all specimens must be labeled as Rebordões Mine, as this is the main entrance for underground works for the last 30 years. As you know, Rebordões is located 3 km from Barroca Grande.

The problem is that underground, almost all the mines are linked, so even going down by Rebordões, some works may be done under the superficial levels of Barroca Grand mine or even Vale de Ermidas mine, so we are never sure about the exactly area where a specimen was colected.

But for all the specimens coming out in this last years, I think they should be labeled as: Level 3 or Level 2 (if we know, as these were the only levels exploted on these last years), Rebordões Mine, Panasqueira Mines (or 'Campo Mineiro da Panasqueira' - 'Panasqueira Mineral Field', as it is the name gaven by the Portuguese autorities) , Barroca Grande (near village), Aldeia de São Francisco de Assis (freguesia - don't know how to say it in english - I almost never use that administrative level on my labels), Covilhã (municipality), Castelo Branco district, Portugal.

It's also time to finish with the 'Beira Baixa' thing that we see in lots of specimens even today. This administrative level (province) was created in 1936 and discarded by the revolution, in 1976.

I agree with you Pedro, I think we should be the most accurate we can, even we have to change everything that is wrongly marked for years, as mistakes should not be forever, but I also agree with Rui, we should have an internal discussion about all the Panasqueira mines before change something. I see someone (maybe you Pedro) put here Panasqueira Mine nº 2 and nº 3. Someone knows where they are? They still exist? Should we put all the small adits that where excavated on the hills (there are hundreds done 100 years ago)? Or just the main mine entrances? Or just the ones that gave mineral samples? Should we put the Zêzere river as well (as it was exploted for alluvial ferberite and cassiterite)?

In my opinion, we should only mencioned here the main mines - Rebordões, Barroca Grande, Vale de Ermida. We can also put some other mines/claims as Corga Seca, Panasqueira, Torgais, and a few more I can't remember the name at the moment. There are 52 claims given to Panasqueira mines spead on the Covilhã, Fundão and Pampilhosa da Serra municipalities that belong to Castelo Branco or even Coimbra districts. Not all have originate mines but they must be/had been under investigation works.

So we have two different things here - one is to label the specimens on the market and I would say that for specimens coming out on the last 30 years, they should be labeled as Rebordões Mine, not Barroca Grande Mine. For others, we should only label Panasqueira Mines. The second is about re-write the Panasqueira Mine's entry on mindat - We should first think and discuss this between us and with mindat coordinaters before changing something. We must take care or things will became real messy.

Jorge



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2012 11:08AM by Jorge Santos Garcia.

"... So we have two different things here - one is to label the specimens on the market and I would say that for specimens coming out on the last 30 years, they should be labeled as Rebordões Mine, not Barroca Grande Mine. For others, we should only label Panasqueira Mines. The second is about re-write the Panasqueira Mine's entry on mindat - We should first think and discuss this between us and with mindat coordinaters before changing something. We must take care or things will became real messy."

Jorge and Pedro, it makes sense to me but my knowledge about Panasqueira doesn't enables me to go further... Jorge's proposal seems to me a good one!

RN

Hi,

«So, to be real accurate, all specimens must be labeled as Rebordões Mine, as this is the main entrance for underground works for the last 30 years. As you know, Rebordões is located 3 km from Barroca Grande.

The problem is that underground, almost all the mines are linked, so even going down by Rebordões, some works may be done under the superficial levels of Barroca Grand mine or even Vale de Ermidas mine, so we are never sure about the exactly area where a specimen was colected....»
That's a problem in fact. But the question here is to create accutared locations where we can input accurate information since we have.
I'm not able to classify all the samples, here, from Panasqueira. That is for each one of us.
I just claim to 'repair' some bugs.

We need locations as Barroca Grande, Vale da Ermida, Panasqueira and others. We need them correctly located (even if they have not produced nice specimens-This is a DATABASE), as a first step.
If we reach a higher level of information about the samples provenience, the locality will be here, available.

Well, to resolve the inaccurate origins, a place like 'Panasqueira Mines' would be the best, i agree. But only for the doubtfull cases.
Evene with a locality as the mentionated above, how can we do that? Because, Panasqueira Mines (Couto Mineiro da Panasqueira) is a large field of mines, wo belongs to diferent municipalities...
If we forget the Vale da Ermida Mines (Couto Mineiro do Vale da Ermida) we restrict to Castelo Branco District only, that's a much.
The locality would be something like that: Panasqueira Mines,*, Castelo Branco District, Portugal.
*here, Fundão and Covilhã, cannot be referred simultaneously, are left out.

Solutions are wellcome.

Many Thanks,
Pedro Alves



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2012 12:16PM by Pedro Alves.

I mean shortly Panasqueira Mine should be in the north of Portugal or does not exist....Héééé!!!!!!

To me it's more a race pictures to sites that have died !!!!

Yes, Mindat is a database, butb what kind of database is Mindat? I can't answer that but if it's a place to put all the possible locations for minerals, we have to put all Planet Earth on it. Should we put the almost 450 marble quarries that exist in the Estremoz marble anticlinal? And the 3.000 to 6.000 Portuguese quarries ? All the adicts or trenches that someone dig 100 years ago looking for ore? If I stop on a road, see something shinning, look with attencion and find 1cm quartz crystal druses should I put that on Mindat? I don't think this is helpfull to anyone but that's only my opinion and I don't lose my sleep on it.

But I do loose my sleep if someone put all the specimens listed on Panasqueira Mine as if they come from Barroca Grande Mine because that is a big mistake. It's worst than say they are simply from Panasqueira Mines. When you visited the mine you went down by Rebordões, the name is written on the top of the mine entrance - see the pictures you have taken or see the picture here on mindat. That's the name of the mine entrance used for the last decades. And Rebordões is far from Barroca Grande. When you visited the mine you didn't walked 2 or 3 km straight ahead to reach the Barroca Grande Mine, you walked around the mine entrance, you have never leaved the Rebordões Mine area. If you want to be accurate don't label your specimens Barroca Grande Mine, at least label them Panasqueira Mines.

I can´t see any problem with labeling them all as 'Panasqueira Mines, Barroca Grande, Covilhã, Castelo Branco district'. A lot of mines spread for several km underground and much of them must cross administrative borders, but when one have to label specimens form them, one must put the main mine name and the administrative location of the main mine or offices. Neves-Corvo Mine is in Castro Verde municipality but almost all the orebodys are in Almodôvar underground territory. This fact is not a reason to label them 'Neves-Corvo Mine, Almodôvar, Beja district'. Everybody labels them 'Neves-Corvo Mine, Castro Verde, Beja district', as Castro Verde municipality is the location of the mine entrance and the mine's office. This is used for all the mines all over the world, why change it to Panasqueira? So even if I was certain that my specimen is from Vale de Ermida Mine I would label it as 'Vale de Ermida Mine, Panasqueira Mines, Barroca Grande, Covilhã, Castelo Branco district'. Other way you'll have 'xxx Mine, Panasqueira Mines, Barroca Grande, Covilhã, Castelo Branco district' and 'xxx Mine, Panasqueira Mines, Aldeia de São Francisco de Assis, Covilhã, Castelo Branco district', and 'xxx Mine, Panasqueira Mines, Panasqueira, Fundão, Castelo Branco district' and 'xxx Mine, Panasqueira Mines, Pampilhosa da Serra, Coimbra district', and so on. That's a lot of Panasqueira Mines and a crazy mess.

Jorge





We must not confuse claim with mine name.

Jorge and Pedro,
I have to agree with Jorge once again. I think that the issue is more clear now. It would be a good sign our quick decision rather than being holding for divine voices. What's your definitive proposal? I´ll subscribe it for sure.
Rui



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 05:56AM by Rui P. Nunes.

For me it is simply an attempt to change the picture of the local representative and the rest is a stupid of any size. I agree with Jorge.
Martins da Pedra

Hello all.
in my very first mesage:
«The list of the minerals (mineral species) concerns essentially the Barroca Grande Mine (http://www.mindat.org/loc-2587.html).
The same with the specimens we see here or in the market (apart some cassiterite specimens who came from Vale da Ermida Mine:[www.mindat.org] ).
I think those that have descriptions which mention Barroca Grande Mine can be restored, the others, we may ask to the people...»
This is not ALL THE SPECIMENS, i guess. Just those who we can be sure. A lot of specimens are from Barroca, just look at the details...


Jorge:
«I can´t see any problem with labeling them all as 'Panasqueira Mines, Barroca Grande, Covilhã, Castelo Branco district'»
Is that your proposal?
Please, explain me why.
First: Barroca Grande is the name of a mine, not of a place;
Second: Why Covilhã? They belong (Couto Mineiro da Panasqueira) to Fundão too.
For Coimbra District, we are talking about the Vale da Ermida Mines (Couto Mineiro do Vale da Ermida)

The only reason to a 'mother locality' exits is for those specimens we can assure the exact origin. I agree with a mother location, only for that, but not in the format above ('Panasqueira Mines, Barroca Grande, Covilhã, Castelo Branco district').

Cheers,
Pedro Alves



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 12:35PM by Pedro Alves.

Martins,
«For me it is simply an attempt to change the picture of the local representative and the rest is a stupid of any size. I agree with Jorge. ...»

I'm just trying to reach better details to the Portuguese locations, I think we all win with this.
Besides that this is just a proposal, the decision is for the mannagers.

Pedro

The difference is Panasqueira and Cebola to the same location with different photos. Invent what else?
[www.mindat.org]% 2Bmine

By the way invented photos for example to Panasqueira 4 or 5 with levels and sublevels ..... we have many different Panasqueira mines.

Hi Martins,
what?
Please explain: The difference is Panasqueira and Cebola to the same location with different photos. Invent what else?
[www.mindat.org]% 2Bmine


Pedro

Hi again,
if i am correctly decoding your message. You mean Panasqueira Mine (not Mines) and Barroca Grande are the same thing,a nd i'm inventing new localities just for fun or for variety of photos.
Look, Panasqueira Mine is not the same as Panasqueira Mines (here, we talk about many many mines).
In Portuguese if you wish: Uma coisa é a mina da Panasqueira (uma concessão em São Jorge da Beira, que era Cebola antes de 1960), outra coisa é o Couto Mineiro da Panasqueira. Não estou a inventar locais que não existem.

Again, i'm not talking about diferent levels or sub-levels of a mine, i'm not talking about galleries or veins names. They are different mining concessions.

Cheers,
Pedro



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 12:52PM by Pedro Alves.

In my opinion, an improvement in the nomenclature used in the Panasqueira mining district is useful. But is also my opinion that listing every mining claim is not helpful for the collector, and can be deceiving. Also, its also clear that A MINING CLAIM IS NOT THE SAME AS A MINE! Reading the "Boletim de Minas" on the golden years of portuguese mining make this statement very clear. There can be several mines (with the meaning of adits, for example, or open cuts) within the same mining claim (and given to those distinct names used in the official correspondence), and several hundreds mining concessions without any significant works. There were many examples of this during the 3 (or 2, by some authors) "tungsten booms" in our country.
I'm not trying to say that the efforts made for several individuals present in this conversations are meaningless, far from that. But is my conviction that some of those efforts are, IN MY OPINION, misdirected... But it is worth what it's worth, which is probably very little.
Cheers, Luís Martins.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 01:10PM by Luís Martins (2).

Pedro

Barroca Grande is a place indeed, is a village on the 'freguesia' of Aldeia de São Francisco de Assis, that belongs to Covilhã municipality. It is the head's Mine Office as well. The current mine entrance, Rebordões, is also located near Barroca Grande, that's why the label must say Covilhã.

Barroca Grande is also the name of one mine entrance, not used for decades, that gave acess to levels '0' and maybe '1' too, located in the middle of Barroca Grande village, near the ore treatment plant.

Specimens may have 'Barroca Grande' labeled for 2 reasons:
- 1º reason - Because Barroca Grande is the village where the mine (the whole structure) is located.
- 2º reason - Because the first specimens 30 or 40 years ago came from level '0' and '1', they may have come from Barroca Grande mine and you know that when people don't know what they are talking about, they usually repeat things they saw or read and mislabeled specimens. See this picture: a foreigner dealer got a specimen from Rebordões mine, in the 90's, look for Panasqueira specimens and see that most of them, that are older than his where labeled Barroca Grande Mine and repeat it. That´s the way errors perpetuated.

But we are talking about 'mines' names that we don't know if they are really Mines or simply the names of entrances to the Mine. In fact, I tend to believe that's only one big mine with several entrances, all linked underground by hundreds of km of adicts, used to acess different levels and works of Thee Panasqueira Mine. I think all of this must be cleared out, before change anything.

We should not mistake a claim with a mine - Some mines have the claim's names, some claims originate various mines and some claims never originate a mine. The Vale de Ermida 'mine' is one of this situations, need also to be clarified.

Jorge