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

Techniques for CollectorsCataloging Micromounts

26th Jun 2017 00:47 UTCDenise Bicknell

Just curious. How do you catalog your micromount specimens? In a separate catalog just for them or in your general mineral catalog? Mine are in my general catalog. I was thinking I might have done them separate but I didn't. Thoughts?

26th Jun 2017 01:14 UTCDon Saathoff Expert

Hello Denise,

I'm sure it is an item of personal inclination but Cookie & I use a sequential numbering system with the letters MM for micro boxes, TN for perky boxes (1.25 X 1.25", MIN for 2 X 2 boxes and no letter designation for cabinet specimens - one catalogue on paper. Each specimen or box bears the catalogue #. The catalogue extends back to 1956! We tried using the computer but things in that field change too rapidly and neither of us are typists!!!

Don

26th Jun 2017 02:09 UTCDenise Bicknell

Hello Don. Thanks for the reply. I was sitting here pondering my collection and thinking about adding a catalog on Mindat and the thought just popped into my mind. Curious, ya know? Mine is a paper catalog too. 1956, that is as old as I am, now I am revealing too much, lol. I bet your collection is amazing to behold!

26th Jun 2017 02:17 UTCDonald B Peck Expert

Hi Denise, my catalog is in my computer, but periodically I print update pages for a notebook. The specimens are sequential but the index to the detail is alphabetical. So each time I print, I print only new additions, plus a new index (maybe twice a year). All sizes of specimens are in the catalog, but there is a field for sixe, which is filterable and searchable (as are all the fields).

Just one caution . . . if you decide to use a computer, choose a database or spreadsheet that is not going to go away.

Don

26th Jun 2017 02:31 UTCDenise Bicknell

Right, Don. I think I will stick with paper and maybe use mindat catalog. I like the idea of a notebook. May think on that too. Thanks.

29th Jun 2017 21:42 UTCEd Clopton 🌟 Expert

I use 3" x 5" cards, one per specimen, filed in two categories, thumbnails and larger specimens. My former micromount collection constituted a third category. Cards have the advantage over a notebook of allowing one to pull a card and send it along with a specimen being traded or sold. The catalogs also have been entered into two gigantic MS Word table documents--low tech in computer terms, but simple and easy to understand. I don't know which version, cards or digital, is the backup for which, but I feel better having it all both formats.

Having a catalog of one's collection is a good idea, but bear in mind that maintaining a too-detailed catalog can become burdensome. Mine is borderline, but it does impose a de facto significance test on each specimen: Is this rock worth the trouble of either mounting (in my own elaborate way) in a Perky box or printing and affixing a "lifesaver" label; writing up a 3 x 5 card; and entering the info into the computer catalog? I guess it helps keep the riffraff out of the collection . . .

30th Jun 2017 10:18 UTCAlysson Rowan Expert

My index is in an Access database (but I'm migrating to a less Windows dependent program) - which is stuffed with LOTS of extra detail - including supplier, cost at acquisition (for purchased pieces), size etc. There are separate records of (bulk/unsorted) material etc. from collecting trips and so forth.

I also have multiple (3x5) index-card indices (printed from the DB along with labels of different styles) - that stay with the sub-section of the collection (micromounts, petrology, fossils, main collection etc.)

Once I have the new database up and running, I will be replacing the A4-format hard copy of the master data with a folded A5 version (i.e. A6 size) which will also work as a card index.

By printing the cards, I never have to rely on the legibility of my handwriting (scrawl, at best), the durability of the ink/pencil or my ability to write an accession number in 1pt (I glue on my accession labels rather than painting dots)

30th Jun 2017 16:51 UTCDonald B Peck Expert

My catalog is in MS Access also. (I found the learning curve a little steep) I include only the data that Identifies the species and locality, plus source info, and lately have added the URLs to mindat species page and mindat locality page for easy lookup. I think it was Rock Courier who said not to include info that can be looked up. My exception to that is the chemical formula and crystal system since I often want to use them for sorting. Access also prints my labels. I have all sizes in one catalog, but there is a drop-down list for size (defaults to Micromount, since that is my usual entry).

Cataloging a new specimen takes maybe three or four minutes, and I do very little typing. Most of the time is looking up the species and locality on mindat, from which I copy and paste (eliminates a lot of typing errors). I have my micro workspace and my computer on the same desk, so everything flows kind of nicely, even searching photos when I need that for IDs. Cataloging is part of the process.

I think this is the fifth reincarnation of my catalog. #1. 5 x 8 filing cards, #2. 5 x 8 needle-sort filing cards, #3. Microsoft Excell spreadsheet, #4. MS Access 2003,( obsolete file format), #5. Access 2016 (and I hope the last one). I do make a paper copy. The paper copy has the detail for minerals in numbered entry order. The entry order is indexed alphabetically. So when I update I only print the entry order detail from the last that was printed, but print an entire index.

I think that if Microsoft ever drops Access from its Office Suite that I will stop collecting minerals !! ;<}

1st Jul 2017 10:02 UTCAlysson Rowan Expert

Donald, I'm still using Access '95 - completely obsolete, and just about runs on Windows 7. The Access DB has evolved over 25 years or so, and is just a little bit ragged with the changes which have been shoehorned in over the years.

Next update will be to Linux, so I need a new DB in place before then - which will also give me a chance to re-organise the indices and flag fields.

Rock Currier was right in recommending that information that could be looked up is unnecessary, but anything that you want associated with a specimen should be included (which means that a dump of the data will include everything you have on that specimen).

Things like chemical formulae, on-line (and book-) references are best stored in a separate table, and indexed against species/varietal name - making your display fields relatively easy to manage. Some labels and all index cards, I have found, are better managed using Word forms to print with - having a wider and more varied range of formatting options available.

1st Jul 2017 15:07 UTCLászló Horváth Manager

Donald

If we are in competition for the oldest and most out of date database, I am using a vintage version of Lotus Approach, which was based on the old Dbase IV.

And, I use Lotus 1-2-3 for printing labels. Both work perfectly well even under Windows 10. I did back up the Approach collection database as a spreadsheet with Excel. With 17K + specimens in the collection sometimes I have nightmares of losing something. I have copies on 4 computers & some external hard drives. I keep everything together in the collection database regardless of size, denoted as M, T & C (MM, TN & cabinet to garden size). The C specimens have dimensions (50x45x30 mm) in a separate field. I also have a text field for ID details (XRD, EMPA etc).

I have a separate collection of reference specimens (~2500+) that were submitted for analytical work (XRD, EMPA), which are in an Excel spreadsheet. I started this in the first DOS version of Lotus 1-2-3 in the early 1980s.

1st Jul 2017 17:22 UTCDonald B Peck Expert

Hi Lazlo,

Although I worked with dBase (don't remember which version) in the 1980's, I never used it for my catalog . . . don't know why. And it is good to hear that Lotus 1-2-3 still works with Win-10. I am still learning to use Access 2016. They are pushing for everything written to customize it be in VBA, and I have not got my head around it yet. I have done a lot of programming, but mostly in Borland's Delphi and a little assembler. I need to find a good manual for VBA. I downloaded the IMA/CNMMN table of minerals and formulae and am currently trying to figure out how to enter a mineral name in Access with progressive typing and search. When I figure that out, loading the formula into the Access display will be from the IMA table and spelling mineral names will no longer be a problem. (Programming is another hobby). I worry about losing files, too. I keep copies both on my two computers and on memory sticks.

Hello Allyson,

I was using an old version of Access on Win-XP and when I switched to Win-10 I got messages that it could not read the old Access tables with the new version. I have heard since, that if I had gone through Win-7 it would have worked. Anyway I now have a working system . . . not where I want it yet, but it works with close to a minimum of input time. I still have work to do on printing labels, although I can do it in Access, and I want to develop a few relational tables to reduce the size of my main table. As I told Lazlo, I have to figure out VBA first.

1st Jul 2017 17:49 UTCTony Nikischer 🌟 Manager

Perhaps I am older than all of you.. I still use a DOS-based relational database called Alpha 4 from the early 1980s. It takes some work to get printed output, and some modern operating systems don't run it without another interfacing piece of software, but the lesson is that just about any method will work (Lotus 1-2-3, Excel, Access, Word, etc...), even index cards, sequential paper logs etc. Logging and recording what you have is part of curating and learning about your collection, so have fun with it!

2nd Jul 2017 00:59 UTCDonald B Peck Expert

Hi Tony,

Half the fun is learning to use the new sytem! ;<}

Don

3rd Jul 2017 08:28 UTCLuca Baralis Expert

Just a little off-topic, but I'm interested in how you databasers deal with chemical formulas. Managing subscripts and superscripts is not easy in a digital database!

3rd Jul 2017 13:41 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

If your database can handle unicode characters it is fairly simple to use them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_subscripts_and_superscripts

3rd Jul 2017 14:55 UTCAlysson Rowan Expert

Luca Baralis Wrote:

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

> Just a little off-topic, but I'm interested in how

> you databasers deal with chemical formulas.

> Managing subscripts and superscripts is not easy

> in a digital database!

In my case, I can store them as either HTML or Rich Text Format fields. I also have a little program that parses flat formulae (mostly correctly).

Both HTML and RTF are fairly simple flat-text 'languages' that can describe the typesetting for super/subscript etc. without the need to resort to Unicode character tables.

3rd Jul 2017 16:45 UTCNelse Miller

I began computerizing my catalog using an old copy of dBase III+, which was really overkill for what I needed, so I switched to the Microsoft Works database, which was fine. After Works lost its support, I moved to Access, which is again overkill. Then a hard drive crash forced me to buy a newer version of Access (not cheap), although my database files were backed up. I am a cranky, distrustful old man with a skeptical attitude towards some technologies, so, for the last decade or so, have maintained a paper notebook in which I record data for each new item acquired, i.e. mineral, locality and how and when acquired. I would like to produce an Access report and a print out for my older items but am having a hard time getting started.

5th Jul 2017 17:49 UTCDenise Bicknell

Nice discussion. Interesting to see how everyone does their catalog. Talk about old school, mine is completely on 3×5 cards. It would be nice to be able to have search capability. Has anyone tried the mindat catalog?

5th Jul 2017 21:59 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager

Hi Denise

I have started converting my catologue to Mindat catalogue - have converted all my miniature/thumbnails. Still need to work on all the larger specimens.

I have found that the Mindat catalogue is virtually all I need and it enables me to store the photos etc. (although I don't use it for all my mineral photos - just one or two of each specimen). Where I have many photos of the same specimen I simply keep those in a photo file.

I also create a Word doc for each specimen with photo and store on my own hard drive and back up. That way I have two copies of data at home and a catalogue on mindat - which I effectively use for numbering, and storing photos.

I have changed my numbering system to minID. Currently back tracking on all my larger specimens. When completed I'll start adding the photos.

I use my own Excel program for my printed labels - just name and locality, to ensure all labels are visually the same size.

I could do without the Word files but I like to maintain these because of the additional information I like to keep on specimens but I really don't need to do this as most of the fields are in the Mindat catalogue anyway.

I certainly don't bother with storing chemical formulae as these can be looked up at any time.

As I have just started to do micromounts I have also used the Mindat catalogue for these too.

If I didn't create my Word docs the Mindat cataogue would be all I need for storing info and numbering of specimens. I would then only need to use my Excel template for a label.

By using the Mindat catalogue it provides a fail safe if I happen to lose all my data at home. While it would not provide a back up of all my photos and notes it would provide sufficient to identify all specimens in my collection (once I have completed my cataloging of course).

Mindat works for me.

Cheers

Keith

5th Jul 2017 22:20 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

In my humble opinion, collectors waste too much time making catalogues, whether in the form of paper books, cards, or someone's computer. Over the years I've handled or seen way too many old collections where those catalogues got separated from the rocks, or collections were dispersed and the majority of the new specimen owners had no access to the original catalogue. Such a waste of information! (and the cataloguer's time)

There is only one important repository of information on your micromounts, that is most likely to be retained and useful after your (and my) ultimate demise, and that is the information that is on or attached to the micromount box itself. Practice writing really tiny letters ;))

Keith's mention of a Mindat-hosted catalogue of your collection is a valuable suggestion too. That way the information you accumulated about your specimens can become available to everyone after your departure from this world, and not just to the person who inherits your paper catalogue and may or may not save it.

6th Jul 2017 11:36 UTCAlysson Rowan Expert

@ Alfredo

That is one of the purposes of the computer DB - I can produce labels with miniscule writing to stick onto specimens - just the most essential information, and much more readable than my hand-crafted scrawl.

6th Jul 2017 11:40 UTCAlysson Rowan Expert

Nelse Miller Wrote:

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

> ... I would like to produce an Access

> report and a print out for my older items but am

> having a hard time getting started.

Access has a really simple report design wizard which is accessible from within the open database.

It is worth playing around with the designer in order to get what you want out of it.

You will need to set up suitable query filters in order to limit what you put into it, but things like sorting and grouping can be taken care of automagically from within the report designer.

6th Jul 2017 13:22 UTCLuca Baralis Expert

Alysson Rowan Scritto:

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

> That is one of the purposes of the computer DB - I

> can produce labels with miniscule writing to stick

> onto specimens - just the most essential

> information, and much more readable than my

> hand-crafted scrawl.

Right! And it is an easy way to find specimen "lost" in drawers, boxes, flats, display cases...

6th Jul 2017 16:11 UTCDonald B Peck Expert

I agree with Alfredo that we can spend "too much time" cataloging our specimens. BUT, it is kind of fun, in a weird way; and I believe it adds to our collections. I have spent a lot of time upgrading to Access 2016, but it was a challenge. I used to write programs in Borland Delphi, and even a little assembler. Access is just as challenging, and it keeps my mind young. Will my catalog get separated from my micro boxes? Probably, but that does not diminish what I gain from building it. Further, if I give away specimens, I can give the catalog sheet with them (and delete it from my catalog). If I want to know what Isometric specimens I have. for whatever purpose, I can list them out in a few seconds. And I learn a lot while cataloging a piece. And, did I say it was fun?

6th Jul 2017 21:13 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

I hope that you all are using archival paper to print your labels and cards.

I have been doing most of the above, having started out in MS Access, with scripts, etc. to manipulate the information, I found this to be a bit of an overkill, so I migrated to Excel. I use MS Word and Excel templates to print both labels and 3x5 cards onto archival paper. The labels go with the specimen, usually in the MM or TN box or cardboard tray, keyed to a number on the specimen as needed, and the cards go into the flats with the specimens, together with prior labels, hard copies of analysis, and print-outs of references. I am now entering all of this into MinDat. The specimen labels are considered to be the primary reference, with the 3x5 cards the backup. Excel and on-line data storage is more for searching and looking for duplicates.

6th Jul 2017 23:18 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager

Hi Jeff

I also laminate all my display labels. Makes them firmer and less likely to move in drawers. If on a glass shelf they tend to move less but you can always add a "sticky dot" on the under side to prevent all movement and has no effect on the laminated label itself.

Cheers

Keith

6th Jul 2017 23:31 UTCD Mike Reinke

Alfredo, I really appreciate what you say. Facing a move soon, ill be downsizing my collection, which isn't real scientifically important anyway. And the work and angst of where to put each piece in its place, especially the exceptions and oddities, is only fun when I'm not tired! I do enjoy keeping a 'research and fun facts' page on each mineral. That is just one alphabetical notebook. I have thought of, besides the names, listing the minerals in chemical alphabetical order, so starting with aluminum thru to zircon. I haven't yet found anything that does that.

7th Jul 2017 10:11 UTCAlysson Rowan Expert

D Mike Reinke Wrote:

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

> ... I have thought of, besides the names,

> listing the minerals in chemical alphabetical

> order, so starting with aluminum thru to zircon. I

> haven't yet found anything that does that.

Most databases and spreadsheets will allow you to sort the dataset according to some column/field in order to print indices. You then select which columns you want to print out in your index.

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 25, 2024 14:41:58

Go to top of page