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
Techniques for CollectorsStrict Micromounters
23rd Jul 2009 02:00 UTCTom Trebisky
By this, I mean that the only minerals you collect are micros,
I am about 99.999 percent a strict micromounter. Clearly this is a choice, and in
my case I think it is driven by what I enjoy most on one hand, and the fact that a person
just can't do everything on the other. At this time I have maybe 3 or 4 miniatures that
have drifted my way, and intend at the first chance to give them to a friend who will
appreciate them. By that time I will have admired and enjoyed them to my satisfaction.
Of course if they were potential micro material, then they would get broken up,
a mount or two made, and the remnants passed along to other mounters, if any
of the remnants had merit (as they often do).
I also really strive to put my mounts in the one size of micro box I have chosen.
A few choice items (very few) stay in some kind of larger box. Also I have some mounts
of historic interest that I keep in their original boxes with original labels. These are what
I call "xenomounts" (what another fellow calls "OP's" for "other peoples" mounts). I only
do this when I know who the mounter is and keep a record of that. I need to enlarge my
collection of such by trading some of my mounts with you, dear reader. When I get mounts
from some unknown source (as I sometimes do), I almost always remount them. This gains
uniformity of course, but also - I hate to say it - I am usually far from satisfied with the
craftsmanship of what comes my way.
I thusly tend to push the envelope in trimming material into my chosen box (in my case the
althor type box, although I buy mine from FLS enterprises, who I think provides a nicer
box of the althor size). I have sometimes regretted not using a larger box, but I also know
a fellow using the slightly larger box (of the size once or still provided by Minresco), who now
laments the fact that his boxes cost 60+ cents (mine cost 17 cents at last purchase).
I am well aware of the "don't risk it, use a bigger box" saying, but I am only involved in a tragedy
very rarely and find it much easier to organize and enjoy a uniformly packaged collection.
As it was put to me, "it is the micromounters job to get the specimen in the box".
23rd Jul 2009 02:20 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager
23rd Jul 2009 02:28 UTCSigurd Stordal
So I guess I'm a micromineral collector by preference, but being an openminded person just can't seem to put of minerals of any size if I find them.(:D
23rd Jul 2009 18:13 UTCDonald Peck
As to other sizes . . . I have never been known to refuse or throw away a "giant micro". At a show one time, in the micromount area I exhibited "The Ultimate Micro". It was a 30cm x 18cm Smokey quartz crystal mounted on a 10cm x10cm post in a wooden apple case. When I was seven years of age, I watched my grandfather dig it up on his dairy farm in Connecticut. Most of my non-micros are in the 3cm to 10cm range.
24th Jul 2009 12:10 UTCMalcolm Southwood 🌟 Expert
I, too, call myself a micromounter, though the balance has shifted over the years.
When I started collecting seriously, nearly 30 years ago, I had plenty of time, and relatively little money, and I enjoyed using the time to get out and collect, and to process and mount specimens when I got home again.
Over the years, time has become much less plentiful, but I can afford to spend a little more on specimens, so bigger specimens have become the dominant part of what I acquire these days. However, the micro collection also continues to grow as time allows. One of my major regrets is having two separate catalogues; one for micros, and one for larger specimens; really they should all be part of the same collection.
mal
24th Jul 2009 16:30 UTCDonald Peck
24th Jul 2009 16:34 UTCSebastian Möller Expert
I do collect MM size mostly (around 90 percent of my collection), but as a regional collector I do collect bigger ones as well. But I don't like the bigger ones (bigger than 4x6 cm) too much, even the well crystallized ones. Those are just "see-all-at-one glance" pieces to me, nothing of special interest. If there is something which can only be seen by using the microscope its much more interesting to me. Sometimes I almost thought of selling the bigger ones and collecting micros and small cabinets to thumbnails only.
Regards,
Sebastian Möller
24th Jul 2009 18:14 UTCIan Jones Expert
for me though, if i cant hold it in my hand, it's not a real rock:)
24th Jul 2009 19:29 UTCJesse Fisher Expert
Didn't I see something like that on a card stuck up in a phone box around Soho?
24th Jul 2009 20:55 UTCTom Trebisky
24th Jul 2009 23:36 UTCMalcolm Southwood 🌟 Expert
Combining the two databases is something that I've pondered a great deal. They have different accession number systems - micromounts have simply an accession number (ranging currently from 0001 to 2037), while accession numbers for larger specimens have a year and sequencer - e.g 1984.048. I use Access to catalogue, but also have all of the data exported to Excel sheets, because I find it easier to format and print reports from Excel (which probably says more about my poor Access skills than anything else).
Any thoughts on combining would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers
mal
24th Jul 2009 23:41 UTCMalcolm Southwood 🌟 Expert
Your point about finding micros more interesting strikes a chord with me, and I would add here that I routinely examine all of my TNs, miniatures, and cabinet under the microscope. It's amazing what one finds in addition to what was on the dealer label. I think all serious collectors should have a look at all specimens under magnification in order to get the most from them.
mal
24th Jul 2009 23:52 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager
25th Jul 2009 01:04 UTCSam Cordero, Jr.
25th Jul 2009 09:35 UTCRay Hill Expert
I still mount about a couple of hundred or more specimens every year, but I have slowed down a lot ..
But Malcolm, I highly recommend Rock Currier's database, as it has amazing flexibility and capacity...
Tom, I have been honed in on the Althor product for a long time, so I am curious to find out how close to Althor, that those FLS boxes are, and how snug a fit they are , and how well finished they are...could you PM me with a bit more info, since they sound like they are cheaper than Althor.
Thanks.
27th Jul 2009 08:41 UTCEddy Vervloet Manager
Getting more and more into collecting phosphates and arsenates, obviously I had to get more and more
into micros, since the majority of minerals does hardly occur otherwise. It goes without saying I thoroughly
enjoy micros nowadays, but as mentioned in previous threads, I still prefer my matrix to be like 2x4 cm,
with more than just one micro crystal... the fun of glueing 1 tiny grain on top of a cactus needle eludes me!
I will also always 'remount' any specimen I obtain. I give no value to a specimen because it was mounted by X...
27th Jul 2009 23:28 UTCJoseph Taggart
I do not believe in "strict" micromounting. I am a mineral collector foremost, and have specimens of all sizes from 30 cms down to micro size. I would sum up my observations of mineral specimen collecting as follows: The rarer the specie, the more likely it is only available in micro size. The sharper and better formed the crystals are, the more likely they are of smaller size. The smaller and more fragile the crystals are, the more likely they need to be mounted in a box for their protection. The more affordable specimens are likely to be micros. In order to advance my knowledge about mineral species and crystallography these days, it is more likely the specimens I add to my collection are going to be micros/micromounts.
Eddy,
Along with the above thoughts on mineral collecting in general, here is my thought on micromounting. I save micros of all sizes, prefer crystals on matrix, and would never purposely reduce the size of a sample to fit on a cactus needle. While I wholeheartedly agree with you about mounting specimens on cactus needles, when I do come across a small loose crystal I do not throw it out but mount it on an appropriate sized pedestal. For loose diamond and gold crystals from a placer deposit, sometimes this is a tooth pick or cactus needle. I may wish the sample was bigger, or on matrix, but sometimes its not.
28th Jul 2009 03:33 UTCSigurd Stordal
28th Jul 2009 04:23 UTCBryan Manke
Micro collecting would be collecting small crystals, regardless of storage/display.
I wouldn't say a lapidary is a miniature collector, even though what they create may mostly come from miniature sized specimens. They're taking miniature sized specimens and turning them into something else (not always miniature I know). I apologize for the horrible analogy.
I do a bit of micromounting and micro collecting since sometimes I don't feel the need, desire or energy to permanently mount a particular specimen. I am pretty much a micro collector, part time mounter. I guess the term micromounting is getting more watered down over the years, and I am guilty of abusing it too. I would probably mount more if I felt more comfortable trimming 2cm specimens and if mineral tack disappeared altogether.
28th Jul 2009 05:44 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager
28th Jul 2009 09:49 UTCEddy Vervloet Manager
in this thread
Micromount definition?
I concluded, as expected, Europeans do not 'mount' like Americans understand that.
We also care less about the overall size of a specimen. We will never break it up, just so it
would fit in a micro box...
Microcollecting would be a more appropriate term indeed.
29th Jul 2009 02:53 UTCTom Trebisky
(I never actually met or knew Milt Speckles, but I kind of feel I know anyone whose book I have read, if I ever happen to have a Neal Yedlin mount come my way I will feel the same).
I certainly do find mineral tack foul and oily, but my nose isn't sensitive enough to detect the stench. I do sometimes use tack to perserve some of my "material for trade", but I pray that the material doesn't stay on the tack very long, and that it will get into the hands of someone who will properly mount it before the matrix becomes saturated with oil. In general, I despise tack and commend Alfredo for telling it like it is. Maybe I will switch to mounting my trade material with white glue and eschew tack altogether. I do know a fellow who takes a few empty perky boxes and a bit of tack into the field to preserve some really delicate items that would be unlikely to survive any kind of packing and this certainly has merit. Never say never.
For me I guess if I had to boil down what most appeals to me: It is all about the crystals! And I seem to come across the greatest diversity of really exciting crystals in micros. As for mounting - it is all about preserving those crystals.
I never really rest until I have a finished and labelled mount - up to that time all kinds of misfortunes can come along.
29th Jul 2009 11:38 UTCEddy Vervloet Manager
But the good stuff contains no oil at all! The big advantage of tack is (providing we are not talking
about micro-micro-micro pieces...), that you can quickly and easy take a specimen out of the box
to take a picture or so and just as quickly put it back in. I personally hate it when one is glued in...
I always re'mount' new specimens and I hate to have to use whatever it takes to disolve the glue...
And of course I also take a dozen boxes with some tack to the collecting site!
11th Aug 2009 01:52 UTCBill Lechner Expert
Bill
11th Aug 2009 09:12 UTCEddy Vervloet Manager
16th Oct 2009 08:49 UTCGianni Porcellini - Italia
I have e new web site on micromounts
www.micromounts.it
I suggest you to have a look.
Thanks for your visit.
Gianni Porcellini - Italia
21st Oct 2009 16:54 UTCDonald Peck
I visited your site and I think it is the start of a very good one. Great picture of Toscano! (and the sphalerite and ennargite are not bad either). I will look forward to following the development. Bellisimo!
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 11:01:28
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 11:01:28