Log InRegister
Quick Links : The Mindat ManualThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryMindat Newsletter [Free Download]
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
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
Keyword(s):
 
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

GeneralA challenge for rare mineral collectors

26th Sep 2018 18:11 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

I recently ran across a list of all of the minerals on Mindat that don't have photos. I wonder how many of these minerals are in the possession of folks who use this site. Let's see how many of these we can get at least one photo of by the end of this year! Please post a reply note when you add a photo so we can all see it. Here's the list: https://www.mindat.org/nophoto.php

26th Sep 2018 19:18 UTCClosed Account 🌟

Colinowensite added!


Branko

26th Sep 2018 19:21 UTCRichard Gunter Expert

Hi Kevin:


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

An example of my last point is wopmayite. It has been posted as an accessory to one of my Tanco apatite samples. The phase meets the physical properties of wopmayite, but it has not been XRD confirmed as wopmayite, so I did not enter it as the primary phase on the sample.

26th Sep 2018 20:20 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

00377070016028238413591.jpg
Iridarsenite added.



Richard, Colinowensite and Bobdownsite are different matters. ;)

26th Sep 2018 20:49 UTCPaul Brandes 🌟 Manager

Splendid idea, Kevin!

The current count stands at 852 species without a photo.....

26th Sep 2018 23:26 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

I've fixed the page so that it better reports only valid species!

27th Sep 2018 01:27 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Paul and Jolyon, thanks!


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

I may have some in my archives, but the quality may be poor, as they would be in slide film. Some of these have been for sale on e-rocks, maybe they can help.

27th Sep 2018 02:35 UTCRonnie Van Dommelen 🌟 Manager

For those that are more recently described, one path is to write the author(s) of the paper describing the mineral. If there is a photo in the paper, they should know the photographer, and that person may be willing to allow it to be used on MinDat. It's not a lot or work to write a nice email.


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 🌟

By the way:


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

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.

27th Sep 2018 10:27 UTCAlysson Rowan Expert

Jolyon & Katya Ralph Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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

Branko,

Added, thanks.

27th Sep 2018 12:29 UTCTomas Husdal Expert

Cayalsite-(Y) has two photos but is on the list. Both photos are uploaded as the 1O polytype - could that be the reason?

28th Sep 2018 14:43 UTCChris Stanley Expert

There is a problem in that only the first named mineral (if there is more than one as is often the case) makes it and the other associated minerals don't appoear in the photos list.


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

Chris's comments are the same as what I said earlier. Is there a way of referencing a second or third mineral in a string?

29th Sep 2018 16:13 UTCErik Vercammen Expert

I've uploaded digital photos of a polished and mounted specimen of mertieite-1 and of the page that came with it (SEM-photo, X-ray picture): is this an acceptable way to handle the microscopic rare species?

1st Oct 2018 09:30 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

> Is there a way of referencing a second or third mineral in a string?


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

Chris


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

`There isn't a really good way to deal with it currently.


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

Ok.


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

Wopmayite is noted as a photo on the mineral page but does not occur on the header. It may be an example of the need for a cache cleaning.

1st Oct 2018 16:53 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Clearing the cache took care of the problem on the mineral page.

1st Oct 2018 17:03 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Oh also, when the minerals are not the primary species in the photo they are NOT shown as header photos on the mineral page (and these pages will have no header photos).


This is deliberate as it may be misleading.

1st Oct 2018 17:32 UTCRichard Gunter Expert

Sounds good to me. That way a photo of a rare mineral, may be without detailed analyses, can be used as an example.

4th Oct 2018 02:44 UTCRonnie Van Dommelen 🌟 Manager

Added meridianiite. It is not a closeup view, but an in situ photo.

4th Oct 2018 03:35 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Cool!...

9th Oct 2018 00:53 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

08040800016028238415783.jpg
Langisite is added.


Who will add Modderite?

25th Jan 2022 21:02 UTCNekkhi Murtishi

I recently obtained a modderite, photo will be added shortly

25th Jan 2022 21:21 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Thank you for posting photos of the rarities!   Hopefully folks that visit the Tucson shows (I won't be there this time) will find some to share.

2nd Feb 2022 20:50 UTCNekkhi Murtishi

07490050017056020918500.jpg
Added the extremely rare modderite!

2nd Feb 2022 21:29 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Thanks!

9th Oct 2018 09:39 UTCRonnie Van Dommelen 🌟 Manager

00341910015390743701744.jpg
Added a photo of synthetic ringwoodite, but it will not be shown on the mineral page. Should a line be added in the general description with a link to it? There is another, similar, synthetic ringwoodite photo on Wikipedia.


9th Oct 2018 10:37 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Added it (via the head photo override on mineral edit page).

10th Oct 2018 00:19 UTCRonnie Van Dommelen 🌟 Manager

Thanks David.


Srilankite, melcherite, decagonite, delhuyarite-(Ce), imayoshiite, gratianite, hitachiite added.

11th Oct 2018 18:11 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

04695190014977212585532.jpg
Kihlmanite-(Ce) is added.

13th Oct 2018 08:06 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager

vanadium is added... three photos: (1) thin section reflected light image, (2) same view in PPL, (3) same view in XP.


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

Thank you Frank.

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

If you are talking about https://www.mindat.org/photo-914222.html

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

Hi guys,


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

Public and user only are set by the photo reviewers.

29th Oct 2018 14:44 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Bump. Did anyone pick up an ultra-rarity at the Munich show?

29th Oct 2018 16:19 UTCAndreas Schloth Expert

Not literally an ultra-rarity, but a rarity for sure. Managed to get a really good sample of the new mineral Rhabdoborite-W, though I had another one before. I'will be trying to get some good macro-shots tonight (german time) and upload.

29th Oct 2018 16:38 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Don't know whether it qualifies as an "ultra"-rarity, but I got a currierite.

29th Oct 2018 22:07 UTCAndreas Schloth Expert

Here are the pictures:


https://www.mindat.org/photo-917195.html

29th Oct 2018 23:47 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Andreas, very nice, thank you!

12th Nov 2018 18:56 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

02287500015434248484220.jpg
Batievaite-(Y) photo was added.

15th Nov 2018 18:10 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

01322660016028238424108.jpg
Ruthenian Iridium photo was added.

15th Nov 2018 20:10 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager

Hi Pavel,


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

Hi Frank,

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

Hi Pavel,


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

Added zoltaiite and greenwoodite.

19th Nov 2018 00:49 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

02969870015430676456603.jpg
Added rinkite-(Y).

3rd Dec 2018 20:05 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Bump. Thanks to everyone who has posted photos! Does anyone have any others to add? As a reminder, here's the list: https://www.mindat.org/nophoto.php

3rd Dec 2018 20:58 UTCClosed Account 🌟

08492950016028238422433.jpg
Voudourisite added.

1st Jan 2019 04:33 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager

06826710016015788666841.jpg
oxy-chromium-dravite added:


1st Jan 2019 13:15 UTCHans Kloster

Of the 856 minerals without photos I have 144 minerals, but without photo and most of them are so small, that I can not make a good photo. Sorry.

1st Jan 2019 14:22 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

Hello Hans,


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

Chalklarit, Chalkar, Kazakhstan

3rd Jan 2019 10:41 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager

Hans,


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

Hans


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

No record of Penzhinite in Namibia either but would like to see a better photo of this piece, thank you.

3rd Jan 2019 12:38 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

The so called chlorellestadtite from Crestmore is either hydroxyl or fluorine dominant, would need analysis to tell which one, no Cl dominant has been proven from Crestmore.

3rd Jan 2019 18:19 UTCHans Kloster

The basis of the ID is, that I have bought the minerals from:

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

Hello Hans,


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

I've had a similar experience as Paul reports, although with not quite so dismal a percentage. With one well-known dealer (whom I need not identify here) I'm at about 1 out of every 2 samples as misidentifications, but perhaps more hopefully, I'm probably closer to only about 1 out of 10 misidentifications overall. In none of these cases I think the misidentifications were on purpose or meant to deceive... it's simply that rare minerals don't typically have a large pool of experts to say, "I'm so familiar with this species/locale that that's clearly mineral X". When a rare mineral is identified from somewhere, some collectors seem to label every similar looking rock from its immediate vicinity as a specimen of it. This reasoning is probably what got me a Palos Hill nybøite that was really glaucophane, an ottrélite (from Ottré in fact!) that was really just chloritoid, and a Kovdor katophorite that was really a magnesio-hastingsite (and each of these cases of mistaken identity came from a different reputable dealer).


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

Another problem is the change in the definition of minerals, with the amphiboles as best (or worst?) exemple. Specimens may be identified according the 'old' rules, and changes in the collection or a dealer's stock occur seldom. And for ottrélite: every Mn-rich chloritoid was once called an ottrélite, but according to the actual rules you need more than 50% Mn on a certain site in the mineral's structure.

4th Jan 2019 12:24 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

There are some dealers that deliberately misidentify things but these are rare and mostly confined to ebay. However since most dealers are in the business to make money they will not make a great effort to make sure everything they sell is what they say it is. For example there are still many dealers who sell heterosite as purpurite. It "looks like" is still a common "analytical technique" simply because to analyze every sample would make the samples very expensive and the vast majority of collectors would not be willing to pay for that.

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

To add to Erik's remarks. If you had to pay the cost of identifying an amphibole with complete certainty you could either not afford it or not want to pay the price. As a result in order to keep prices low a dealer will make an educated guess based on partial analysis of a sample that looks the same from the same locality and label it accordingly. Usually the dealer has no idea what the probability is of that ID being correct but assumes it is at least 51% . As a buyer you need to be at least well enough informed to understand the problems associated with identifying some groups of minerals species and take that into consideration. It is not reasonable to expect a dealer to analyze every sample and then offer them at cheap prices. If you are not well enough informed then you should not be buying or if you do buy should be willing to accept a possible misidentification. If on the other hand you pay for an analysis and find the dealer was wrong, then the dealer should happily refund your money (including shipping costs) without giving you a difficult time. If a dealer is not willing to do that, then they should not be in the business of selling minerals. I have come to the point where I will not buy something, even from a reputable dealer, unless I have some affordable way of confirming the identity of the mineral. However one plus side to this is that sometimes you discover that the error is in your favour and that the misidentified specimen is actually something much rarer.

4th Jan 2019 19:47 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager

Hi Erik,


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 🌟

Given that there are so many rare species without photos, how does a collector even know if the specimen is what it is labelled as, and furthermore, if the labelled locality is even correct? These are common problems with "common" specimens, let alone "rare" species where one would at least hope the locality data was accurate and you had the option of getting it analyzed to confirm its identity.

7th Jan 2019 22:43 UTCRussell Boggs

A possible work around to the case where adding one primary photo would make the other photos where it is a secondary mineralogy not visible would be to search the secondary fields if there was less than a given number (say 10?) of primary photos of the mineralogy.

7th Jan 2019 23:02 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

Russell, do you understand yourself what you wrote here? I don't.

8th Jan 2019 00:09 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

Russell, I have no idea what you are saying please clarify.

8th Jan 2019 05:07 UTCDon Windeler

OK, I'll take a risk and try to interpret Russell's comment -- mostly because I kind of get where he's coming from.


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

Most people who upload a photo make the rare mineral as the primary mineral, not the mineral with the greatest percentage on the specimen.

8th Jan 2019 22:51 UTCRobert Rothenberg

It seems to me that the issue arises when there is more than one rare mineral on a specimen. Bob

10th Jan 2019 08:11 UTCHans Kloster

It is not a big problem, I have Ellestadit-(Cl), Bellerberg, Eifel from Muizebelt The Geological Museum in Copenhagen have the same problem, even with smithsonite. Thanks for information.

23rd Jan 2019 22:11 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

07592030015482814711304.jpg
Merrillite added.

24th Jan 2019 13:19 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager

added dellagiustaite.


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

Maohokite added

16th Mar 2019 13:45 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Branko, that's quite an assemblage of minerals in the first photo, nice!

16th Mar 2019 19:36 UTCClosed Account 🌟

Thanks, Kevin! Specimen like this one are the reason I still have a collection of KMF minerals, while I have given away everything else not from Lavrion.


Branko

18th Mar 2019 14:57 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

08809840015529208868837.jpg
Mavlyanovite added.


21st Mar 2019 00:38 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

07008760016028238437071.jpg
Jaipurite added.


24th Mar 2019 13:27 UTCChristian Auer 🌟 Expert

02392720015535307463502.jpg
Beaverite-Zn added ...


28th Mar 2019 13:27 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

00031340016028238447004.jpg
Dalnegorskite added.


28th Mar 2019 23:03 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Is that the material that's been sold as "skarn rock" for some time?

11th Apr 2019 22:36 UTCRussell Boggs

There was some ambiguity about my post o 9 January. That is because my phone's auto insert feature put mineralogy when I typed mineral. The correct statement should be. -


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

04787330016028238446672.jpg
Jolyon & Katya Ralph Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is that the material that's been sold as "skarn

> rock" for some time?


As "skarn rock" was proposed slightly different material.


09363030015652396443588.jpg

01713740015652396455342.jpg

2nd Jun 2019 22:34 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

08357260014948410639305.jpg
Ferriakasakaite-(Ce) added.


2nd Jun 2019 23:32 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager

Hi Pavel, I'll have to keep an eye out for some of that material at a future mineral show; it looks like it would make an interesting thin section!

11th Jun 2019 01:38 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

00059280015602134979788.jpg
Tongxinite added.


28th Jul 2019 02:07 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager

06030640015642771497883.jpg
Added three images of aluminosugilite in thin section, with accompanying rims of sugilite, and other minerals. Two photos are in plane-polarized light (one E-W polarizer and one N-S polarizer... shows the material is essentially non-pleochroic), and the third is the crossed polarizer image of the same area. Two of the photos are included below... upper photo is in PPL with E-W polarizer, and lower one is under XP:



31st Jul 2019 06:52 UTCChristian Auer 🌟 Expert

Vavřínite added.

15th Aug 2019 16:47 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager

" Pigotite " added.

15th Aug 2019 21:16 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager

Erikapohlite added.

20th Aug 2019 19:09 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Wow, there have been a good number of these rarites added to the gallery.   Great job folks!

29th Aug 2019 11:18 UTCJodi Carter

and what a great idea!! i was reading through this thread just now and realized what an innovative bunch of problem solvers you all are!

31st Jan 2020 02:55 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

While in Tucson, or anywhere else in the world, be sure to keep searching for those rarities!

31st Jan 2020 03:35 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager

I certainly will!  And by the summer, I'll have new thin sections with accompanying photos and videos, with hopefully a few of those featuring some of our presently un-photoed species, which I can add to this list.

4th Apr 2020 06:29 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

In this time where a lot of us have some extra time, why not check to see if you have a/some species that lack photos?

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 15:20 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

(btw: gadolinite-(Nd) is said to be, possibly, questionable)

8th Apr 2020 16:17 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

Lukasz, I'm sorry, but I cannot see the bazirite in its matrix. Maybe more details, is it the crystal close to the top of the specimen?

8th Apr 2020 16:37 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager

Who's saying gadolinite-(Nd) is questionable?

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

Yup, this is a matrix photo. But the specimen is from Excalibur Mineral, so I assume it does contain bazirite. I haven't been shining it with UV light, yet, but after I do that I can, indeed, take a better picture - thanks for the tip (:

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

thanks for the follow-up, Luke.

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

00735150016028238455193.jpg
Here is a photo of the plumbopharmacosiderite co-type. It was on display in the
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

Nice! (:

30th May 2021 21:14 UTCNekkhi Murtishi

Llantenesite added!

29th Jul 2021 18:13 UTCNekkhi Murtishi

Gorerite, khesinite, and ramaccioniite added!

29th Jul 2021 23:13 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Awesome, keep them coming!

30th Jul 2021 16:55 UTCGarrett Parker

I almost posted a picture of plancheite before reading about this but good luck with filling it out.

30th Jul 2021 17:33 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Even though plancheite isn't an ultra-rare mineral, Mindat welcomes good photos of any mineral.  Each specimen is unique so there's always a newness.

25th Jan 2022 20:55 UTCNekkhi Murtishi

00584080017056021049589.jpg
Added a photo of the extremely rare parageorgbokiite!

8th Feb 2022 02:31 UTCNekkhi Murtishi

Agmantinite added, and Intersilite will be added. Thanks to Carsten Slotta who allows any of his mineral photos to be used for the mindat.org project. Many more under his copyright will be added!

6th Feb 2022 01:03 UTCMartin Rich Expert

05516690017056021109835.jpg
First photo of admontite.

12th Feb 2022 00:34 UTCNekkhi Murtishi

Photos of the following species will be added on mindat shortly:

Khesinite 
ottemannite
Ramosite
Markhininite 
Menchettiite 
Luobusaite 
Carobbiite 
Moydite-Y
Mgriite 
Heideite 
Caswellsilverite 
Fairchildite 
Sudovikovite 
Muthmannite 
Tengchongite 
Belogubite
Kalithallite

22nd Feb 2022 21:43 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

06535640017056021175971.jpg
Itsiite added.

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

Thanks again to everyone who are contributing, and to those who are enjoying, photos of rarities!

23rd Feb 2022 16:59 UTCKelly Nash 🌟 Expert

If someone had enough time on their hands, and enough expertise to recognize credible images, I think a lot of the minerals with no images here have photos available on the internet under Creative Commons (CC) licenses. For example there are nice photos of the first two on the list (abswurmbachite and acuminite) that can be found from a Google search of CC images,  that were posted to  Wikimedia Commons by someone named Salah Rashad Zaqzoq.  There is the problem that a lot of these type of photos do not have a good scale, it might have to be estimated.

27th Jul 2022 19:00 UTCChristian Auer 🌟 Expert

Kenoargentotetrahedrite-(Fe) added: https://www.mindat.org/photo-1233835.html
Thanks Martin!

24th Aug 2022 22:20 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

01372330017056021332290.jpg
Osbornite added. Unfortunately only from slag locality. :-(

24th Aug 2022 23:13 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Awesome work everyone, keep them coming!

7th Sep 2022 22:18 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

02889910017056021408022.jpg
Sergevanite added.

13th Sep 2022 21:32 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

07063490017056021494210.jpg
Selsurtite added.

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

This is sample from Kuzmenkoite trench - on the back side of this sample Kuzmenkoite-Mn, Calciomurmanite and Natrolite grows. Selsurtite is quite abundant in at least three points of "Flora mount" in different associations, but I like this one most of all other.

14th Oct 2022 16:16 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager

Tristramite photo added.

Keep safe.

14th Oct 2022 16:48 UTCHerwig Pelckmans

For those wondering what it looks like:

Thanks for posting, Paul!
Cheers, Herwig

27th Oct 2022 15:02 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager

08098580017056021575666.jpg
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) added
That'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

Added strontiopharmacosiderite based on personal data from the late Pete Dunn. He mentioned the presence of Sr>Ba in Ogdensburg pharmacosiderites in print however. Photo also appears with an overly cautious caption in Mineralogy of Franklin and Ogdensburg, New Jersey.

7th Nov 2022 02:55 UTCNekkhi Murtishi

05539790017056962865574.jpg
Teschemacherite added

20th Nov 2022 02:53 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

06511780017056962869808.jpg
Ixiolite-(Mn2+) added.

16th Jan 2023 01:02 UTCNekkhi Murtishi

08304690017056962862493.jpg
Vozhminite added

16th Jan 2023 01:02 UTCNekkhi Murtishi

03105840017055650636457.jpg
Khamrabaevite added

16th Jan 2023 01:24 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Wow, two in one day, thanks!

16th Mar 2023 19:14 UTCMarek Chorazewicz

08939290017056213096372.jpg
Matthiasweilite added. Yellow northstarite crystals are present as well. 

9th Oct 2023 17:35 UTCNekkhi Murtishi

01935770017056340793824.jpg
Natroniobite added

9th Oct 2023 19:41 UTCFrank Mersch

Amazing - I made KNbO3 during my PhD and some solid solutions in that system (Na,K)(Nb,Ta)O3 - 30a ago. 

Thanks for sharing - you made my day

Frank

7th Feb 2024 18:29 UTCNekkhi Murtishi

06302730017069298279609.jpg
Chloraluminite added!
 
Mineral and/or Locality  
Mindat Discussions Facebook Logo Instagram Logo Discord Logo
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: March 29, 2024 10:54:42
Go to top of page