Donate now to keep alive!Help|Log In|Register|
Home PageMindat NewsThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusManagement TeamContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatSponsor a PageSponsored PagesTop Available PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthMineral PhotographyThe Elements and their MineralsGeological TimeMineral Evolution
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
StatisticsThe ElementsMember ListBooks & MagazinesMineral MuseumsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice Settings
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day Gallery
Anonymous User November 16, 2010 06:31PM

Sounds good, I'll get working on these changes tonight. I know the nearest town has to be added for several other districts in southern California as well, such as Mesa Grande, Warner Springs, Aguanga, Jacumba, Ramona, etc. I'll clean up the references to match the new standard long format for these as applicable when I add the nearest town. I've been putting it off till we had more complete sublocality listings, so I'm glad the time has come to get it done.

It's great to be working with you... someone who actually reads my work here and offers meaningful assistance.


It's really a pleasure to be a contributor on mindat. You are most welcome!


Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2010 06:35PM by Scott L. Ritchie.
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. November 16, 2010 11:24PM
S cott,

Please just attend to the Pala Mountain and Pala District issues right now. Until I finish tidying up the remaining files (I'm on "R's" now) any effort in other districts will be incomplete and will require double work. There is a list of areas of concern to me (due to my unfamiliarity with the details of the county) which I will post as soon as I finish. These will then allow you to polish up the county since I will be "finished" with it then. Thanks!

Anonymous User November 17, 2010 11:57AM

Pala issues have been addressed. I have a few more localities to add for Pala, but I'll work on this later. Tomorrow night I'll attend to the Vista Chief and Victor mines.

Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. November 17, 2010 01:30PM
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. November 22, 2010 05:25PM
Hooray!! San Diego County is finished (from my perspective). On to Imperial County.


It's all yours! I have some concerns about how I attributed localities between the Julian and Banner districts. The definition of the Banner District is rather narrow. Please have a look at it and change as required. Also, I don't know if all of the localities within the city limits of San Diego are stated as such. The city's 2 sets of boundaries are very irregular and confusing. Finally, the Jacumba District needs a look. Thanks!!

Anonymous User November 22, 2010 11:01PM
Hi Chet,

Indeed, the Spanish Ranchos makes boundaries in San Diego city a bit confusing. I'll take a look at it.

The Banner District, as I understand the area, is separated from the Julian District along it's western boundary by the ridgeline of Chariot Mountain, which separates Rodriguez Canyon from Chariot Canyon. The southern boundary of the Julian District is at the Cuyamaca Rancho. The area from the Oriflamme Mountain top and west would also be in the Cuyamaca District. It's somewhat nebulous as to the Blair Valley area along the eastern side of Granite Mountain; whether it's traditionally part of the Vallecito District or not.

I'll take a look again at the Jacumba District as well.

I'm sure it will take years of organizing and tidying to really define certain aspects of what is and isn't or shouldn't be part of many of these district boundary areas, but it's really starting to take shape. So... thanks for being such a trooper.

Anyways, you've done a great job and made some really good judgment calls and separating those difficult unorganized district boundaries by ore and deposit type to get things in order. It seems in all these areas, we have gemstones adjacent to tungsten adjacent to gold. The absolute division between the three primary ore and deposit types seems to be by gold, yet tungsten localities will share gold districts and gem districts evenly. Depending on a particular historic author's geographic area or mineral of interest, you have numerous overlapping boundaries. Fun stuff to decipher.

Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. November 23, 2010 02:37AM
Thanks Scott! The Vallecito District really didn't come up on my radar - I don't recall mention of it in the literature. That means that there is probably a good bit of reassignment to do. Anyway, the thing is in better shape than it was before. Good luck on further refinement! I'm already working on Imperial County.
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. December 03, 2010 02:47PM
Imperial County is finished (from my perspective). There may be a need to do some reassignments between the Jacumba District and Ocotillo in general. On to Orange County!
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. December 07, 2010 05:56PM
Orange County is finished (from my perspective). Three counties down and only 55 more to go!! On to Los Angeles County.
Rock Currier December 08, 2010 02:36PM
Don't you dare go and die on us.!

Rock Currier
Crystals not pistols.
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. December 08, 2010 03:17PM
I don't plan on it Rock!
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. January 13, 2011 03:08PM
Los Angeles County is now in the bag. Probably the last before Tucson.
Jim Bean January 14, 2011 05:07AM
One Los Angeles County issue I stumbled upon this evening is that a search for Santa Monica Mountains produces no hits while Santa Monica Mts gives the expected results. This probably belongs in Mistakes and Errors but I'm just tossing it out here due to laziness.
David Von Bargen January 14, 2011 02:31PM
The Mt is the convention here. see
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. January 14, 2011 03:11PM
The use of "Mts" for "Mountains" in the locality string is required by Mindat policy. "Mountains" may be used in the comments, titles of references, or in the locality string if "Mountains" is part of a mine name or other feature (e.g.: Spirit Mountains Mine, or San Gabriel Mountains Ski Heaven).
Jim Bean January 15, 2011 05:41AM
Thanks, I'm not at all opposed to shortening things. Looks like the manual has expanded quite a bit since I last looked at it, time to do some reading.
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. January 25, 2011 03:46PM
Ventura County is finished.
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. January 31, 2011 03:42PM
Santa Barbara County is finished.
Bob Griffis February 24, 2011 01:40AM
I am working on two localities which I think are confused with each other.

Today, I updated the description of the Chance Mine, Mono Co., California locality ( ). I added site photos and a mineral photo, and added lat/long and township/range. I am still researching for references and developing a more complete mineral list.

As part of this effort, I ran across the mincat locality reference for Long Chance & Vanelmart Mine (Chance Mine; Long Chance Mine; Chance No. 4 claim), Chidago District, Benton Range Rare II Area, Mono Co., California ( ). It has a mineral list that I believe is the same as what I have seen from the Chance Mine. The mineral photo attached to this locality definitely belongs to the Chance Mine.

It is suspicious that the township/range in the Long Chance Mine mindat listing ( sec. 2, T4S, R32E, MDM ) is so similar to that of the Chance Mine ( sec. 2, T4S, R31E, MDM ), which I know because I relocated the claims in 1997. I reviewed the reference Copper in California, California Division of Mines Bulletin 144 (1948): p. 274, and it lists the Long Chance & Vanelmart Mine at sec. 35, T3S, R31E?, MDM and a claim owner of H.A. Van Loon, Bishop, CA (1935).

The reference in Pemberton, H. Earl (1983), Minerals of California on p. 90 is for Chalcopyrite at the Long Chance Mine (Sec. 33, T3S, R31E, MDM), and on p. 338 for Stolzite "in altered galena from the Chance No. 4 claim in the Chidago District (sec. 2, T4S, R32E, MDM). These are clearly two different mines. The Chance Mine consisted of several workings on several different contiguous claims and a mill site. The mineralogy is consistent with the altered galena reference. I believe that Pemberton contains a typo listing the range as R32E rather than the correct R31E.

I still need to confirm the data in the other references to the Long Chance & Vanelmart Mine listed in Mindat, but don't have them in my library. These are:

Rinehart, Charles Dean & Donald C. Ross (1956), Economic geology of the Casa Diablo Mountain quadrangle, California: California Division Mines Special Report: 48, 17 pp.: 8-9.

California Journal of Mines and Geology (1957): 53: 562.

If anyone has reliable specimens from the Long Chance & Vanelmart Mine, it would be nice to confirm its specimen production. Also, any assistance with the missing references for this locality should clarify what happened to these two localities.
David Zakharov April 20, 2011 08:49PM
Hello there!
I'm russian student-mineralogist and going to USA California this summer.
I'll live in Walnut Creek. Please help me with nearest locality for collecting. May be some geological info.
Thanks for all.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Mineral and/or Locality is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2018, except where stated. relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us Current server date and time: January 19, 2018 23:06:37
Go to top of page