Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryGeologic Time
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsClubs & OrganizationsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice SettingsThe Mineral Quiz
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesSearch by ColorNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryPhotography
╳Discussions
💬 Home🔎 Search📅 LatestGroups
EducationOpen discussion area.Fakes & FraudsOpen discussion area.Field CollectingOpen discussion area.FossilsOpen discussion area.Gems and GemologyOpen discussion area.GeneralOpen discussion area.How to ContributeOpen discussion area.Identity HelpOpen discussion area.Improving Mindat.orgOpen discussion area.LocalitiesOpen discussion area.Lost and Stolen SpecimensOpen discussion area.MarketplaceOpen discussion area.MeteoritesOpen discussion area.Mindat ProductsOpen discussion area.Mineral ExchangesOpen discussion area.Mineral PhotographyOpen discussion area.Mineral ShowsOpen discussion area.Mineralogical ClassificationOpen discussion area.Mineralogy CourseOpen discussion area.MineralsOpen discussion area.Minerals and MuseumsOpen discussion area.PhotosOpen discussion area.Techniques for CollectorsOpen discussion area.The Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryOpen discussion area.UV MineralsOpen discussion area.Recent Images in Discussions
GeneralA challenge for rare mineral collectors
26th Sep 2018 18:11 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
26th Sep 2018 19:18 UTCClosed Account 🌟
Branko
26th Sep 2018 19:21 UTCRichard Gunter Expert
Bobdownsite no longer exists as a separate phase so it should not have photos. They will be posted under whitlockite. Most of these are very rare minerals and often require both high magnification and extensive testing. Some will be noted as accessory minerals to other phases, so will be posted but not as a head phase. I don't know if Mindat can sort these out.
26th Sep 2018 19:33 UTCRichard Gunter Expert
26th Sep 2018 20:20 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager
Richard, Colinowensite and Bobdownsite are different matters. ;)
26th Sep 2018 20:49 UTCPaul Brandes 🌟 Manager
The current count stands at 852 species without a photo.....
26th Sep 2018 23:26 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
27th Sep 2018 01:27 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
Branko and Pavel, congratulations on being the first to add photos of Colinowensite and Iridarsenite!
I know that photos of many of the species are going to be problematic due to a number of factors including their extreme rarity, but think of the fun and knowledge spread with each new entry. Challenge on!
27th Sep 2018 01:30 UTCJeff Weissman Expert
27th Sep 2018 02:35 UTCRonnie Van Dommelen 🌟 Manager
Jolyon, would it be possible to add the status to that list (approved or pending). I would expect getting a photo of a pending mineral will usually be pretty difficult.
27th Sep 2018 07:37 UTCClosed Account 🌟
could somebody add:
Rieck B., Pristacz H. and Giester G. (2015): Colinowensite, BaCuSi2O6, a new mineral from the Kalahari Manganese Field, South Africa and new data on wesselsite, SrCuSi4O10. Mineral. Mag., 79(7), 1769-1778.
to the colinowensite and wesselsite pages.
Thanks,
Branko
27th Sep 2018 09:34 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
Simply done by taking every photo for a species and seeing which has the lowest photo ID.
27th Sep 2018 10:27 UTCAlysson Rowan Expert
-------------------------------------------------------
> It might be fun to do another ranking chart to see
> who has uploaded the most first photos of mineral
> species.
>
> Simply done by taking every photo for a species
> and seeing which has the lowest photo ID.
That would be uncommonly interesting - especially for the photographic buffs out there.
27th Sep 2018 11:05 UTCRonnie Van Dommelen 🌟 Manager
Added, thanks.
27th Sep 2018 12:29 UTCTomas Husdal Expert
28th Sep 2018 14:43 UTCChris Stanley Expert
Hence, some time ago I uploaded some images of palladseite and arsenopalladinite with palladinite rims but the images appear under the first named mineral only. Likewise for garutiite and zaccariniite
Cheers
Chris
28th Sep 2018 15:27 UTCRichard Gunter Expert
29th Sep 2018 16:13 UTCErik Vercammen Expert
1st Oct 2018 09:30 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
Not at the moment. The main reason is for performance - it would slow the queries down significantly to do this and we don't currently have the resources to manage that.
Additionally, those more common minerals (quartz, etc) would suddenly have thousands more photos added where it may just be a matrix component.
1st Oct 2018 09:59 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager
I'm not sure if it works but as a work around can a child photo be uploaded with the minerals in reverse order so as to enable both to be listed ?
I haven't tried it, but I think it would work?
1st Oct 2018 12:25 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
Scratch that thought, I've figured out how to do it, and I'm working on it now.
1st Oct 2018 13:32 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
I have fixed it with a compromise that works pretty well.
If there are no primary photos of a mineral (where it is the first mineral listed), it then, and only then, checks the additional fields.
So, if we have a species like Hongshiite that has three photos at secondary level but no primary, it will now show all three photos.
The only caveat on this is that as soon as a single photo is added as a primary photo for this species, those three secondary photos again become hidden, so it would then list only a single photo.
It's not perfect but it's a lot better than it was before today.
If your favourite mineral species is still showing no photos when there are secondary photos available it may just need the cache clearing - let me know if you find any.
1st Oct 2018 15:32 UTCRichard Gunter Expert
1st Oct 2018 16:53 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager
1st Oct 2018 17:03 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
This is deliberate as it may be misleading.
1st Oct 2018 17:32 UTCRichard Gunter Expert
4th Oct 2018 02:44 UTCRonnie Van Dommelen 🌟 Manager
4th Oct 2018 03:35 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
25th Jan 2022 21:02 UTCNekkhi Murtishi
25th Jan 2022 21:21 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
2nd Feb 2022 21:29 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
9th Oct 2018 09:39 UTCRonnie Van Dommelen 🌟 Manager
9th Oct 2018 10:37 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager
10th Oct 2018 00:19 UTCRonnie Van Dommelen 🌟 Manager
Srilankite, melcherite, decagonite, delhuyarite-(Ce), imayoshiite, gratianite, hitachiite added.
13th Oct 2018 08:06 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager
However, note the locality of this particular vanadium-bearing "rock" is under debate as to whether it's a natural occurrence or a smelter product. I suspect it may actually be a lab-made material:
https://www.mindat.org/loc-220664.html
13th Oct 2018 09:57 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager
But there was an error in the measurements on the upload.
You marked 1000 mm as it must be 1000µm.
What is weird, I edited the picture and changed that but can't find the images again, even after clearing the cache.
David, do you have an explanation, please.
13th Oct 2018 10:41 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager
It looks like it was only approved for user only (checkbox for display site wide was not checked).
If you go to Frank's page and look at the photo gallery (with the show "All images" selected) the photo showed up.
13th Oct 2018 11:12 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager
I'll fix the measurement (unless that's already been fixed... thanks if so), and I'll go back and check any missing boxes for wider display. Guess I must have just missed that.
Frank
edit: measurement was fixed (thanks... I got it correct on the the parent image and then forgot to change it on the child images); the parent image is set to public galleries... I didn't see where one checks that for the child images. But anyone with authorization, please feel free to make them public if they're not currently set that way.
13th Oct 2018 15:10 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager
29th Oct 2018 14:44 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
29th Oct 2018 16:19 UTCAndreas Schloth Expert
29th Oct 2018 16:38 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager
29th Oct 2018 22:07 UTCAndreas Schloth Expert
https://www.mindat.org/photo-917195.html
29th Oct 2018 23:47 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
15th Nov 2018 20:10 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager
Isn't "ruthenian iridium" just iridium? :-)
Said in light-hearted jest referencing your:
Very strange question for me. Strontianite is strontianite, calcite is calcite (even strontian)
comment from the "strontianite or strontian calcite" thread.
15th Nov 2018 20:39 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager
I'm afraid in this case, you do not understand about what I'm saying. I would advise you to look at Fig.4 in the article http://rruff.info/uploads/CM12_104.pdf if you don't remember names of minerals in the Os-Ir-Ru system by memory.
15th Nov 2018 22:10 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager
Thanks for the link. Yes, I did look at Figure 4. I also looked at section h) on page 110. "Ruthenian" is an adjectival modifier, per Schaller 1930; it is not part of the mineral name. There is iridium; there is no "ruthenian iridium". Even mindat notes that "ruthenian iridium" is just a variety of iridium. So in case you don't remember the names of the minerals in the Os-Ir-Ru system by memory, here's the list of IMA-approved minerals, current as of November 2018:
http://nrmima.nrm.se//IMA_Master_List_%282018-11%29.pdf
;-)
I will concede, however, that adjectival modifiers seem to be formalized for the platinum-group elements and alloys, whereas they certainly are not for something like the "strontian" in "strontian calcite". However, it appears even that formalization may be depreciated. Bayliss et al., 2005 (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.532.1379&rep=rep1&type=pdf) write:
Chemical-element adjectival modifiers are not part of the name of a mineral species. Schaller-type adjectival modifiers, which have the endings -oan or -ian, formerly recommended [my emphasis] by the CNMMN of the IMA, in many cases give erroneous information about the valence of an ion, and are therefore inappropriate [my emphasis, again].
So in 2018, it seems that there really isn't much semantic difference between "strontian calcite" and "ruthenian iridium". The former is just calcite and the latter is just iridium, and neither adjectival modifier appears appropriate or recommended (though the value of the added information each conveys is certainly not questioned). In any case, I've used the modifiers myself and I have no genuine objection to them; I was just having a bit of fun with an inconsistency, and I don't want to hijack this thread further. I support non-discrimination for ruthenian iridium... :-)
18th Nov 2018 19:17 UTCRonnie Van Dommelen 🌟 Manager
3rd Dec 2018 20:05 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
1st Jan 2019 13:15 UTCHans Kloster
1st Jan 2019 14:22 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
Good is a relative term. If your photos are good enough to show the main characteristics then they are are good enough. How about showing us an example of one of your photos. Thank You.
3rd Jan 2019 09:42 UTCHans Kloster
3rd Jan 2019 10:41 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager
Thank you for the pictures but we can not use them as they show just a piece of " mineral ".
No characteristic features are shown.
And sorry to play the devils advocates here, but have these minerals been checked.
I used to collect systhematics and after checking my specimens, not even half where right !
I hope this helps.
Paul.
3rd Jan 2019 11:21 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager
Also none of those photos are even in focus, even if correctly identified.
We really do need good quality photos of those rarer species so if you can provide photos in focus and showing the characteristics of the mineral and the basis of the ID, please resubmit.
Cheers
3rd Jan 2019 11:58 UTCDebbie Woolf Manager
3rd Jan 2019 12:38 UTCJeff Weissman Expert
3rd Jan 2019 18:19 UTCHans Kloster
No 72 Dragsted CPH
No 73 Kaiser Mineralien
No 75 Steffen Möckel
No 76, 78 and 84 Geomar
No 77, 83 and 85 Mikon
No 79 Stolze
No 80 and 82 Gunnar Färber
No 81 Dominica, Torino
If they all are not reliable, Mindat should warn us amateurs
3rd Jan 2019 19:00 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
I'm by no means an expert photographer, but it looks like a setting or two may need to be adjusted on your camera. There are some articles that helped me figure out how to take better mineral photos. Start with the basic ones, these may help you too: https://www.mindat.org/articlelist.php?frm_id=searcharticles&cform_is_valid=1&u=&t=photography&c=&f=&ca=0&d=&s=&submit_searcharticles=Search+Articles
3rd Jan 2019 19:07 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager
This is not to discourage one's systematic collecting; it's a challenge all collectors of uncommon minerals have, even those of us lucky enough to have access to analytical facilities. I tend to hedge my IDs and label my samples initially as "acquired for ____________" (fill in the blank with whatever mineral name you wish), and then I still have to wait until I have the time and discretionary funds to hop on the microprobe and verify questionable IDs. As such, many of my samples still remain labeled as "acquired for X" as I'm only slowly able to get to them. And as with the chloroellestadtite example noted in a previous post (and with my examples from above), the issue typically isn't something as potentially obvious as a pyroxene identified as an amphibole (although I've had one or two of those cases too)... it's more likely something much more subtle and not often easily recognizable, like too much or too little of some critical element, which potentially ultimately messes up the ID. I don't know what the easy answer is for misidentified rare minerals, as it's likely impractical for every individual specimen to be analyzed. We can only hope dealers and those who are doing the collecting are cognizant of these challenges, and that they are imparting similar wisdoms on those who may acquire their specimens.
4th Jan 2019 10:57 UTCErik Vercammen Expert
4th Jan 2019 12:24 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
Unfortunately there is the tendency for dealers to "jump on the bandwagon" when a new mineral is discovered without first confirming what they think they have. The best example of that if is the whitlockite-bobdownsite bandwagon. They look identical and at the time only expensive analysis could tell them apart. However as soon as bobdownsite was discovered all the whitelockite became bobdownsite and a new more lucrative market opened up for all the old whitelockite specimens begging for buyers. As it turned out bobdownsite was actually whitlockite as bobdownsite was discredited. Hopefully dealers will have learned from that.
An interesting aside to that is that I bought a "bobdownsite" specimen for my collection and being the cynic that I am, broke it in half and labelled one half bobdownsite and the other half whitlockite. Now I have two whitlockite specimens in my collection. LOL
4th Jan 2019 12:54 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
4th Jan 2019 19:47 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager
It's true that species that sit on or near nomenclature boundaries tend to change names when the rules change. I have an amphibole in one of my samples that was sodic-gedrite under the old Leake et al., 1997, 2003 rules (my preferred nomenclature scheme for amphiboles, btw), but that under the newer Hawthorne et al., 2012 rules has become the unceremoniously-named species "rootname 1"... lol.
But in the examples I gave above, it was a not a nomenclature change that caused the misidentifications. My presumed "nybøite" would have in fact been glaucophane under any of the recent nomenclature rules. And indeed, I don't doubt nybøite is found at the locality. But the dealer who collected the rock obviously mistook a more common blue amphibole for a much rarer blue amphibole, at least in the particular specimen I purchased, probably precisely because the rarer amphibole was reported there and so of course "all blue amphiboles from there must be the rare one". Likewise, no post-late-20th-century nomenclature rule changes would have converted my presumed Kovdor katophorite (which was actually labelled as magnesio-katophorite, but the "magnesio" prefix was dropped when amphibole rootnames were standardized [mostly] to the Mg±Al end-members one or two nomenclature changes ago) to its real magnesio-hastingsite identity. It's simply that two dark similar-appearing amphiboles were mixed up, whether through carelessness or negligence. And in what is usually always the case of course, a rarer one is in reality a more common one.
I also understand the "all Mn-rich chloritoids used to be ottrélite" justification, but my specimen was purchased from a reputable systematic minerals dealer... and perhaps more critically, I bought it within the the last 10 years... well after the 1837 discovery of chloritoid and the recognition that the two minerals were distinct species! The sample was from the type locality and so assumed to be the rarer mineral. Ironically, much "ottrélite" from the type locality is well known to really be Mn-rich chloritoid, so one could argue that either under that circumstance the dealer should have made more effort to verify the stated identity of his material, or that I, the purchaser, should have specifically asked about it's pedigree before purchase (although some dealers get defensive when you question their IDs), and then made my buying decision with more open eyes.
I don't begrudge that dealer (or any of the others... this problem is not unique) for these misidentifications, because I do recognize it can be a major challenge. And that's why my buying has become an exercise in "trust but verify", and also accepting that anywhere from about 10% to 50% of my cool rare minerals will not be what they're purported to be. I will end this perhaps cynical sounding post on a more positive note, however... one rare occasion, I've found the misidentified mineral to be the rarer species rather than the purported more mundane one, so that's always a pleasant surprise.
6th Jan 2019 18:02 UTCHolger Hartmaier 🌟
7th Jan 2019 22:43 UTCRussell Boggs
7th Jan 2019 23:02 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager
8th Jan 2019 00:09 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
8th Jan 2019 05:07 UTCDon Windeler
If you search a mineral fro a locality, it will generally only show up if it is the first mineral selected. So if a photo is 99% quartz and 1% pseudoparaschmutzite, it won't show up if someone searches on pseudoparaschmutzite -- only quartz. By my interpretation, Russell's suggestion is that a locality with less than 10 photos en toto for that secondary mineral will automatically display those photos, even if they are not specified as the primary mineral in a photo.
One could fiddle with the count of specimen photos, but conceptually it makes sense to me given that most rare minerals are not going to dominate the specimen and thus are like to be relegated to the back burner in the current search algorithm.
Cheers,
D.
8th Jan 2019 09:48 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager
8th Jan 2019 22:51 UTCRobert Rothenberg
10th Jan 2019 08:11 UTCHans Kloster
24th Jan 2019 13:19 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager
It was actually already present (and rather abundant) in a couple of BSE images I had previously uploaded of associated species from its "questionably-natural" Argentinian type locality. Although I had the analyses (but was skeptical of their quality... the results suggested that much of the V would have to be present as V2+ [and surprisingly, it actually is!]), I didn't know what to call it; I only just discovered that last month someone had finally named it:
https://www.mindat.org/min-52860.html
26th Jan 2019 13:27 UTCRonnie Van Dommelen 🌟 Manager
15th Mar 2019 20:32 UTCClosed Account 🌟
https://www.mindat.org/photo-944441.html
https://www.mindat.org/photo-944442.html
16th Mar 2019 13:45 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
16th Mar 2019 19:36 UTCClosed Account 🌟
Branko
28th Mar 2019 23:03 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
11th Apr 2019 22:36 UTCRussell Boggs
A possible work around to the case where adding one primary photo would make the other photos where it is a secondary mineral not visible would be to search the secondary fields if there was less than a given number (say 10?) of primary photos of the mineral.
i.e. if there are less than 10 photos with the mineral as the primary mineral the search the secondary fields for the mineral.
12th Apr 2019 01:32 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is that the material that's been sold as "skarn
> rock" for some time?
As "skarn rock" was proposed slightly different material.
2nd Jun 2019 23:32 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager
28th Jul 2019 02:07 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager
31st Jul 2019 06:52 UTCChristian Auer 🌟 Expert
15th Aug 2019 16:47 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager
15th Aug 2019 21:16 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager
20th Aug 2019 18:45 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager
20th Aug 2019 19:09 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
29th Aug 2019 11:18 UTCJodi Carter
28th Oct 2019 22:13 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager
Laverovite added.
31st Jan 2020 02:55 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
31st Jan 2020 03:35 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager
4th Apr 2020 06:29 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
The same applies to localities that lack photos of species. Often we tend to only show the aesthetic minerals, but the mundane minerals are equally as important to document what is found at a locality.
8th Apr 2020 15:19 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert
I also try to obtain and photograph minerals for which there were only single photoes, or photoes not showing details of the aggregates/crystals, like:
8th Apr 2020 15:20 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert
8th Apr 2020 16:17 UTCJeff Weissman Expert
8th Apr 2020 16:37 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager
I found gadolinite with Nd>Ce>Y during my microprobe work of samples of dollaseite-(Ce) from the Norberg, Sweden area actually before it was "officially" named as a species and at the time simply noted the unusual composition. Later I had to add a note that it had been subsequently named. Here's the analysis:
Granted, Nd isn't much greater than Ce in my analysis, so I imagine other material may be locally present where perhaps Ce>Nd? In any case, hopefully people aren't attempting these analyses with EDS, which seems to be everyone's favorite "tool-du-jour" these days, even increasingly for analyses slated for scientific papers... it's a technique definitely not suitable for the mess that is the REE X-ray spectrum. Additionally, even with WDS, analysts need to be careful to not use the Nd Lα peak, which is strongly interfered by the Ce Lβ peak, but should instead be looking at the Nd Lβ peak, which is relatively free of interferences (although careful background selection is still required).
8th Apr 2020 20:58 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert
8th Apr 2020 21:00 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert
Frank,
I honestly do not remember where have I seen this information. I must say I was a bit shocked, and I do not truly believe it is true: the original (and the only?) sample was analyzed by R. Škoda, I also worked on his EPMA and I know they are doing a great job there at the Masaryk University (:
8th Apr 2020 22:34 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager
well, there's at least two samples... lol. If Radek and I both found it independently, then I'm pretty confident it exists... ;-) I suspect it's probably quite widespread, hidden in amongst the dollaseite and other minerals in that region. My sample's assemblage is much simpler than yours, so it may not even be from the same mine.
In fact, the only issue with my sample is that I don't know specifically what mine it's from (I got the specimen from Jaroslav four years ago and it was only labeled as being from "Norberg"). That ambiguity is a little unfortunate, since several of the mines in the area have similar but apparently not quite identical assemblages. I'll have to remember to ask him next year in Tucson if he has any additional information about his Swedish dollaseite specimens.
8th Apr 2020 19:35 UTCKnut Edvard Larsen 🌟 Manager
Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines: Mineral & Gem 2019 show, so the photo is taken trough glass. However I am not sure the value of a photo like this, except for historical one.
8th Apr 2020 20:58 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert
30th May 2021 21:14 UTCNekkhi Murtishi
29th Jul 2021 18:13 UTCNekkhi Murtishi
29th Jul 2021 23:13 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
30th Jul 2021 16:55 UTCGarrett Parker
30th Jul 2021 17:33 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
8th Feb 2022 02:31 UTCNekkhi Murtishi
12th Feb 2022 00:34 UTCNekkhi Murtishi
Khesinite
ottemannite
Ramosite
Markhininite
Menchettiite
Luobusaite
Carobbiite
Moydite-Y
Mgriite
Heideite
Caswellsilverite
Fairchildite
Sudovikovite
Muthmannite
Tengchongite
Belogubite
Kalithallite
23rd Feb 2022 02:13 UTCMartin Rich Expert
Pavel, I overlooked your photo here in this threat. Please see my post:
23rd Feb 2022 02:12 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
23rd Feb 2022 16:59 UTCKelly Nash 🌟 Expert
27th Jul 2022 19:00 UTCChristian Auer 🌟 Expert
Thanks Martin!
16th Aug 2022 21:59 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager
24th Aug 2022 22:20 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager
24th Aug 2022 23:13 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
13th Sep 2022 21:50 UTCRichard Gunter Expert
Hi Pavel:
The matrix for the large Lorenzenite crystals from Selsurt Mountain sometimes carries similar crystals. Selsurtite may not be too rare as these Lorenzenite samples are fairly widespread.
13th Sep 2022 22:10 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager
14th Oct 2022 16:16 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager
Tristramite photo added.
Keep safe.
14th Oct 2022 16:48 UTCHerwig Pelckmans
Thanks for posting, Paul!
Cheers, Herwig
27th Oct 2022 15:02 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager
Pendevillite -(Y) added.
It's the same specimen than the kamotoite and have to reshoot the specimen.
I keep it in a sarcofagus as it is very radioactive.
Keep safe.
27th Oct 2022 15:09 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
Paul De Bondt Manager ✉️
Pendevillite -(Y) addedThat's quite an aesthetic combo specimen!
27th Oct 2022 18:47 UTCHerwig Pelckmans
Paul De Bondt Manager ✉️
Pendevillite -(Y) added. Paul,
It's actually pendevilleite-(Y), since it is named after Pendeville.
I noticed the caption of your photo has the same typo.
A beautyful specimen nonetheless!
Cheers, Herwig
28th Oct 2022 15:09 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager
16th Jan 2023 01:24 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
16th Mar 2023 19:14 UTCMarek Chorazewicz
9th Oct 2023 19:41 UTCFrank Mersch
Thanks for sharing - you made my day
Frank
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 24, 2024 23:48:22
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 24, 2024 23:48:22
Verkhnee Espe Massif, Akzhaylyautas Mts, Tarbagatai Range, Abai Region, Kazakhstan