Identity HelpPossible Barlow Diamond Specimen?
I need some help from the great contributors and experts on this board. I have a few questions about a specimen I just purchased. Here's what I have.
1. A diamond in matrix specimen. The diamond is 8mm X 5mm and the matrix is 64mm X 37mm X 29mm. I did get the diamond tested and it is real. I can even see a carbon cloud under magnification.
2. A mineral tag from F John Barlow that says Diamond, Irkutsk, Siberia, near Lake Baikal, USSR
Now the questions.
1. I tried doing a search for diamonds in this region and I don't see any listed. (I might not be the best researcher though)
2. I looked on the Mineralogical Record website and check on mineral labels from Barlow. They have two listed there and this one looks somewhat like the second one he used in the later years. Is the label authentic?
3. When I look at the diamond under magnification I can see is not perfect. It might be cleaved or just a rough form. Why would a prestigious mineral collector have a reference specimen like this in his collection?
4. Being renowned mineral collector would he ever give such a vague description and location for specimen?
Sorry for asking so much. I hope this is a valid specimen from his collection. I paid $150 for the specimen. The listing for it wasn’t the best so it didn't get the exposure it should have from collectors. If it's not from the Barlow collection at least I have a decent diamond specimen.
Thank you for all your help.
Take care, Keith
Although your specimen doesn't look to bad to me, I have a few specimens that came from John Barlow that are not exactly first class. It's my understanding he'd occasionally buy a whole flat or a lot of material just to get the best one, and then sell the rest of the stuff at shows or to dealers. The locality doesn't sound that vague to me, but maybe someone familiar with the area will have something useful to say about it. Hi Kelly,
That makes sense about the flats. I guess he would only print info that is provided to him.
Thanks for the reply, Keith 
The locality is not so vague, how absolutely wrong. I am afraid it is already impossible to find real locality for the specimen. But itself it is quite good and you obtain it very cheap. 
The diamond on matrix specimens from his book are from the MIR pipe. If it was in his collection it would have a catalog number on it (simple numerical sequence to maybe 6000 or so). http://www.minrec.org/labels.asp?colid=97
That is one of his labels, but he did sell specimens at some local shows around his home area. I have some of the Sanco lables and I believe they were a bit later then the Barlow Collection ones. 
Keith;
I have two similar diamond in matrix specimens as well but they came from the Mir Pipe about 1,200 km NNE of your local. I did a quick search in the Irkutsk area and there was diamond exploration carried out in the late 40's and 1950's with alluvial diamonds found but no production from any kimberlite. Possibly your sample was from that era of surface exploration. The price you paid seems in line compared to the quality and what I paid for mine at the time from Ward's Scientific. Enjoy them as diamonds in matrix samples are not that common. Thanks everyone,
I guess I have a authentic Barlow label with Incorrect info on it. In the trash it goes. Well at least I have a nice specimen. 
Personally, I would absolutely not trash the label!!!!!
Even though it has incorrect locality information, it still signifies that it came from John Barlow and may even enhance the value of the specimen in the future, albeit ever so slightly. Keith;
I am with Paul so please, definitely do not throw out the label. All this information even if incorrect is important, forensically speaking. Any dealer label is of some value monetarily as well as for the information. IF it is erroneous then it should be cataloged as such and a relabeling done to correct the error. The location information for the Mir Pipe and its mine can be found on the internet by searching for the Mir Mine, aka Mirny Mine. Maybe the data on label are from times, when all important geological data from Soviet Union were secret.
And so are as exact as it was given for foreigners. See also Sir Philip Oppenheimer visit to Mir in 1976... Why it must to be exactly from Mir!? Why not from Udachnaya, Aikhal or Zarnitsa? ;-) Because "Mir" fits better on small labels, Pavel ;))
(sorry, just joking)
