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

Field Collectinghow to find where my specimens came from

25th Oct 2017 03:47 UTCTheodore Hansen Theo

so most of my collection did not come with tags or labels of where they came from so is there a way to look up your mineral and find out where it came from? is there a way to do that? or is my collection "ruined" in the sense of it might be meaningless to have minerals that you dont know where they came from? is that a bad thing not knowing where they are from?

25th Oct 2017 04:06 UTCDoug Daniels

So, to start the discussion - usually, no, you can't just "look up your mineral" to find out where it came from. If there was no label with it, it is just a specimen of xxx. Someone might be able to guess, but it is just that - a guess. Not knowing where it is is from is definitely a "bad thing" to most serious collectors. If you are purchasing specimens, don't do so if there is no label giving the species name and a location (the more specific, the better). My opinions.

25th Oct 2017 06:09 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

What Doug wrote is true, the locations of many minerals can't be determined just by looking at them. However, there are some locales that produced very distinctive looking specimens or rare minerals, so these may be able to be recognized by folks who are very familiar with these locales. If you have a few that are special to you take some photos and post them here. Maybe someone will be able to help you out.

Also, if there's a club or rock shop near you, take some specimens there and see if they can help with identification.

25th Oct 2017 06:29 UTCHerwig Pelckmans

Theo,

Specimens without a locality are not worthless. Imagine a gold nugget: it will always retain its actual gold value.

Of course specimens without a locality will loose (part of) their scientific value and also part of their actual value.

One thing to do: put Location: unknown on your label(s).

Later on, when someone is able to tell you where your specimen was most likely found, your label should be changed to
Location: not sure, most likely minename, nearesttownname, countyname, statename

Or at least with a question mark in front of the assumed locality:
Location: ? minename, nearesttownname, countyname, statename

Cheers, Herwig

MKA (Belgium)

25th Oct 2017 09:12 UTCErik Vercammen Expert

Theo, like Herwig and others have said, specimens without a location have lost a part of their value, but they are and stay mineral specimens. They cannot be used to illustrate a locality, but they can still be used as an exemple of ore samples, to show the properties of minerals, like cleavage, luster, density, (differences in) color, or they may make a crystal exhibition.

25th Oct 2017 11:23 UTCJohan Kjellman Expert

I would like to say that many characteristic specimens - for example well crystallized, or with a typical association, or less common ones with a limited number of possible localities - are identifiable with regard to locality, especially if ID'd by a person who has experience of the material. That would not be "a guess" but " an attribution", there is also another expression "educated guess" (educated not necessarily meaning academic), which falls somewhere between "a guess" and "an attribution".

Devils advocates would clame: "No, the mineral you have that looks like material from locality X, and even have been identified by locality-X-expert so and so, could come from another yet unknown locality". This is in my opinion nonsense talk, the caveats come with the attribution, which of course should be apparent on the new label and catalogue entry, like Herwig gave exmples of.

The best thing you could do is put images of your samples in the "identity help" forum, where many helpfull people make "educated guesses" from photos. If you put images out, you will most likely get an instant reaction from the community of the general quality of your specimens, and thus the degree of importance of looking for a tentative locality. This is fine, unfortunately there are also a lot of people with less experience "guessing", sometimes under the flag of expert attribution, which is not so good. I assume sometimes the good feeling of being an expert in one area tempts the ego to expand into other areas, other times it is just fun to try and test your knowledge. So be careful out there, with what advice you may get (if you're the one asking) and what advice you give (if you're answering).

Having said this, there are of course many generic specimens that could not, and should not, have a locality attributed to them.

cheers

25th Oct 2017 12:52 UTCMatt Courville

Hi Theodore,

To the mineral community lack of attribution is going to hurt the value, but to the lapidary and new-age groups, they should not be too concerned. So, not all is lost I suppose.

If you have a large volume in your collection I might suggest collecting two different streams of minerals - one with and one without IDs. You will be able to get(or bargain) nice looking mineral specimens for a fraction of the cost if they have no reliable info, and you could display them on a shelf of some type with just the mineral type alone.

I generally field collect most of my specimens, so although this limits me to types, I'm quite happy with the collection so far. To each their own, as they say

Matt

25th Oct 2017 14:54 UTCLuca Baralis Expert

Speaking about Devil's advocates...

Probably you can be 100% confident about provenance only for self-collected specimen. And only if you carefully recorded your finding.

;^)

25th Oct 2017 16:23 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert

Many of us have approximate knowledge of a whole host of species and their localities, and I won't dismiss the idea that we gain this knowledge for the very purpose that be of some use. For common and widely distributed materials, I wouldn't hesitate to offer a suggestion for lost locality information to a general collector on this kind of material. However . . .

Whether Poorly attributed or deliberately mis-attributed, poor locality information is the Bane of any serious collector/collection. I hesitate to offer suggestions for less common materials beyond curbing the enthusiasm of others who find good sport in the process, no matter how misguided their suggestions. Too many times, a locality more familiar to many will win such a debate, even when someone more familiar with that particular locality disagrees and offers both, reasons why and a more likely possibility. Yes, as noted previously, even the much lauded expert in one area, will inadvertently take their acumen to other arenas.

A recent experience at The Franklin Museum over a stray Byssolite specimen from some other region, almost certainly not from one better known locality, but near identical to a lesser known locality. One of the premiere Franklin/Sterling Hill experts decided where it was from . . .the better known locality, the one I'm convinced it's very "unlikely" from, being it's my primary area/region of acumen. . . . but case closed and a known error is introduced.

If people were principled about labeling it would be one thing, but noting "likely" or "assumed" on an attribution will never be OK with most, and any note of a "best guess" will be inevitably be struck from the record in favor of surety anyway. Human nature.

25th Oct 2017 18:15 UTCDon Saathoff Expert

Theodore, Cookie (my wife) and I have been collecting minerals for over 60 years and we have many nice specimens labeled "location unknown" (Loc. Unk.). Even if they have no value to others they have great value to us! As was mentioned earlier only those specimens "dug with your dirty hands" can have have an absolutely reliable attribution. Enjoy your specimens and don't worry about attribution all that much....

Don

25th Oct 2017 19:01 UTCGregg Little 🌟

I'll chime in on the general chorus having, over the years, told collectors (mostly beginners) that the single most important piece of information on a specimen is locality. In most cases virtually anything else can be determined from the sample, except the location.

Of course we work against indifference, secretiveness, unscrupulous sellers, the uninformed and, lack of curation in estate sales, in over zealous collectors, in ownership lapses, etc. I am probably guilty of the over zealousness with much collected material begging my attention.

At the very least, if there are reasonable representative samples they have a teaching value.

26th Oct 2017 03:14 UTCHoward Heitner

I have several comments about the importance of knowing the locality of a specimen.

First, locality was not always important. I have specimens from old collections with localities, for example, Arizona, Nova Scotia, Chile. A. E. Foote labeled all his native copper specimens "Lake Superior".

Second, there is a long history of localities being deliberately being misstated to conceal the true locality

.

Third, labels often get shuffled. Putting a number on the specimen and having a catalog is an important way to preserve what information.

Fourth Sometimes labels and catalogs are obviously wrong as to locality or species or both.

Fifth Putting a monetary value on locality information is a very dangerous game. Most experienced collectors have encountered examples of fraud. My advice to new collectors is to be very careful, especially when a seller stresses locality rather that quality of crystals, rarity, esthetics etc.

26th Oct 2017 05:03 UTCDoug Daniels

Theodore - hope you're still here..... I kinda figured the comments would go the way they did. Remember all - he asked if there was a way to find out the localities of his specimens. Yes, we all went off on the tangent that one needs to document your finds, whether by dealer, stealer, or finder. Yes, we collectors know why we need as detailed as possible locations for our specimens. And, even without a definite locality, the specimens have worth for teaching (is that an interest of his?). These were not the OP's original question... I'm a bit afraid that some of our answers may have chased Theodore away, when we might have been able to help on maybe a few of the specimens.

26th Oct 2017 06:56 UTCHerwig Pelckmans

Doug,

That was one of his questions that indeed did not get much attention.

Theo,

In theory a specimen can be attributed to a specific locality by studying in detail its chemical composition. But that requires a lot of time and money, so in almost all cases such a study is not done. One notable exception is turquoise, because archaeologists are very interested in finding out about the trading that took place in ancient times.

Cheers, Herwig

MKA (Belgium)

26th Oct 2017 17:22 UTCGregg Little 🌟

Howard; "Fifth Putting a monetary value on locality information is a very dangerous game."

My point was that value is not just monetary but knowledge as well; note H. Pelckmans comment above.

Hopefully Theodore is still with our thread. I would be interested in tossing out some guesstimates on his "anonymous" specimens.

Hopefully there are some classic rock samples. Let the games begin!

28th Oct 2017 21:37 UTCTheodore Hansen Theo

Thank you all for your opinions and help! I hope to be posting parts of my collection for further identification soon! My thoughts wrapped up on this post is just because I dont know where there from doent make my collection worthless it means I just have more to learn!

29th Oct 2017 00:17 UTCHoward Heitner

I agree that a mineral has more than monetary value. Unfortunately a specimen without a locality has little or no scientific value. Before doing any work on a sample, one should be absolutely certain of its origin and history. Many years ago I was told a story about someone who had done some surface studies on a sample, only to find out later that it had been cleaned with acid.

I also encourage Theodore to post pictures of his specimens for us to look at. If the specimen is crystals on a matrix, it would be helpful to take a picture of the crystals and a second one of the matrix. The matrix can sometimes help identify the location.

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 4, 2024 23:47:20

Go to top of page