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
โณDiscussions
๐ฌ Home๐ Search๐ 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
Improving Mindat.orgSilver?
18th May 2017 17:49 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
18th May 2017 18:09 UTCPaul De Bondt Manager
18th May 2017 18:19 UTCDon Saathoff Expert
Don
18th May 2017 18:40 UTCKyle Beucke ๐
I would not want it titled "silver ore" unless there was at least one silver mineral or mineral with silver as a component identified. The internet is littered with gold and silver "ore" specimens, some of which appear to be just quartz pulled off a mine dump with no verification of mineralogy or metal content. This could be significant here, as hydrothermal systems evolve and you could have multiple generations of quartz, carbonates, etc. with very different metal contents. What if the specimen here is an earlier, barren quartz vein? This could mislead someone into thinking this is what the Ag-bearing vein material looked like. This is all hypothetical, of course.
And then we have the economic definition of "ore."
Kyle
18th May 2017 21:17 UTCDon Saathoff Expert
Don
18th May 2017 22:45 UTCHolger Hartmaier ๐
Holger
19th May 2017 14:21 UTCGregg Little ๐
19th May 2017 15:21 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager
19th May 2017 16:09 UTCJon Aurich
19th May 2017 17:39 UTCKyle Beucke ๐
I suggest, when uploading a photo like this, not using a mineral title, but one of the miscellaneous categories, like "rock" or something. No need to be pressured into entering a mineral species! I use these categories for specimens like this. If there are details on a mineral ID, analysis, etc. you can put this in the remarks.
Nobody is trying to cast doubt on your knowledge of this material, but to enter a mineral species ID there has to be some kind of evidence. Some of the characteristics (crystals, etc.) of the mineral should be visible, or there should be analytical data (EDS, XRD, etc.). All that most of us can see in this specimen is apparent iron sulfide; there may be possibly other sulfides/sulfosalts, but how can we know if we can't see them or there is no evidence provided? If this is documented ore (as in, you can be confident of that because it was obtained from the mining operation/geologist/miner (not just pulled off a dump and assumed to be ore because it has sulfides), then upload it as a specimen of ore (not a mineral species) and provide details in the remarks. If you identified specific silver minerals in the specimen, that is a different story; take a close-up shot with a microscope and say how you identified it, and upload as a mineral species.
Just suggestions!
Kyle
19th May 2017 23:33 UTCRalph S Bottrill ๐ Manager
19th May 2017 23:58 UTCDavid K. Joyce Expert
There are all KINDS of specimens like this on mindat. The locality is important, too. I suggest: "Pyrite, Grand Prize Mine, Tuscarora District. Nevada". Then a note/description of the specimen noting that "there may also be very fine grained silver minerals in this vein section that came from this former silver propert/mine". Nothing wrong with that is there?
David K Joyce
20th May 2017 09:10 UTCRalph S Bottrill ๐ Manager
20th May 2017 19:45 UTCGregg Little ๐
21st May 2017 00:03 UTCRalph S Bottrill ๐ Manager
21st May 2017 05:03 UTCDavid K. Joyce Expert
Jon is just trying to add a photo of an interesting mineral specimen from a mine that, currently has no photos. He may or may not know about epithermal vein systems, near surface oxidation or other geological processes and terminalogy. Many keen collectors will never be able to look at a mineralized specimen and determine whether is is ore, waste, or what the mineralization style is. I stick to my suggestion that the specimen and others like it be entered as the dominant mineral from a certain mine-deposit, with perhaps the associated minerals noted. A paragraph can be added about the geological implications, if the contributor is capable of writing such a description. I suggest that many contributors are not. It is still worthwhile and important to have the picture of the mineralization available under that location. Otherwise any of you can jump in to do the research and ad geological content to any given locality or specimen.
21st May 2017 05:14 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager
22nd May 2017 13:19 UTCRalph S Bottrill ๐ Manager
22nd May 2017 15:02 UTCDavid K. Joyce Expert
You are right Ralph. It would actually relevant or good to know for EVERY locality on mindat. But WHO will classify each deposit or group of deposits in a given locality? Even new ones? For many mineral collectors or mineralogists just identifying all of the minerals in a specimen is daunting. Even pyrite vs marcasite. If the collector/owner of a specimen knows or has the wherewithal to determine the deposit type or the assemblage of minerals in a specimen, great! Add the info to the locality description either new or retroactively. I try to point out associations with every specimen I photograph and enter into mindat. I do not always know the deposit type. Even if I do, for instance, know that a locality is a pegmatite, I rarely know what classification of pegmatite it is. It would take a lot of time for most of us to accurately figure out deposit types or what classification a mineral deposit is, with confidence. It is quite a different knowledge base from mineralogy. I welcome all geologically knowledgeable people that frequent this site to actively add that information to localities that they know about and/or add a geological reference. There could be an optional field with pull-down menu of deposit types for every locality. We just need people, who really know deposit types and classifications, to enter or manage the info, in order to keep it meaningful.
David K Joyce
22nd May 2017 15:19 UTCGregg Little ๐
22nd May 2017 15:44 UTCThomas Lühr Expert
All your points are true and i agree it's difficult to handle this photo in the right way.
The German site Mineralienatlas gives the option to link the same photo to more than just one mineral species and/or category. This would be allowe to show that photo as a pyrite photo as well as a ore photo in the "other" category of the locality.
On the other hand, in my opinion, a photo like this makes not much sense in the GENERAL pyrite gallery, but it does in the mineral gallery of this specific LOCALITY, to show how a certain mineral occurs there. Therefore i would like to have the option (to the uploader and the managers) to exclude a photo from the species gallery. If there were a status such like "locality only" between "user only" and "public galleries", then a more exact description of the paragenesis of a certain site/deposit would be better possible without "wasting" the species galleries.
22nd May 2017 20:56 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
22nd May 2017 21:17 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager
22nd May 2017 22:17 UTCRolf Luetcke Expert
When I looked at the photo it looked like it was in a display cabinet, maybe at a museum and not in a private collection where the dominant species can be identified.
I think there certainly is a place for photos like this, especially for collectors that go to small mines and often only find samples of what they were using as ore when one here and there were missed.
It is true though, hard to figure out just what to put as the main mineral. Nice sample though.
22nd May 2017 22:27 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager
22nd May 2017 22:34 UTCDoug Schonewald
22nd May 2017 23:14 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager
23rd May 2017 00:18 UTCDavid K. Joyce Expert
Please note that we already have an EXCELLENT system for recording interesting mineral localities and the minerals that occur at them. Some feel that it is not as good as some might like for "ore" specimens. I don't agree but so be it.
1) Photo's of "Ore" samples are important and many well crystallized samples from mines are ore minerals. "Ore mineral(s)" being the economic mineral(s) of importance)
2) Common ore samples from mines are also important and, certainly, to me, photos should be entered into mindat on the basis of the recognizable minerals. If there is a good probability of other minerals or solid solution elements or some unidentified minerals that could be important, those should be noted in the blurb about the photographed specimen. People should not speculate at identification but should note what they see. If they can get analyses done, fine. If not, that is fine, as well, as long as accurate observations are presented.
3) Knowledgeable people will be able to observe photos of specimens (like the one above) and surmise that it is a certain type of deposit or style of mineralization. That is good and, as far as I am concerned, a prime purpose of mindat
4) Photos of well crystallized waste samples from any locality should be very welcome in mindat
5) Photos of un-crystallized waste minerals from any locality should also be added, if a dominant minerals or two can be established. All metallic minerals are not ore. Many are waste. Small amounts of ore minerals are not, necessarily ore. Not all economic minerals are observable in "ore".
6) The above specimen photo is the only photo for that particular location. I believe that makes it a brilliant photo that should be uploaded for what it is; a vein section, from that location, that shows pyrite as the dominant mineral with possible silver content or possible unidentified associated silver or silver containing minerals. Jon should be thanked and assisted by a knowledgeable mindat manager to label the specimen, as accurately as possible.
So some people want improvements to mindat so that "ores" are better categorized? My guess that this feature would facilitate a search for "epithermal vein", "VMS-type", Mississippi Valley type", etc. deposits? That could be good! If there is a real demand for this, then I suggest someone step forward to lead/coordinate the charge on this. Like Rock did for the "Best Minerals" project. Someone needs to determine need/interest and then put forward a proposal that the managers would need to approve. Then same person(s) would need to do work to make it happen and to ensure quality of input for those specimens that have been categorized as "ore specimens". As I tell people all the time who complain or mumble on about mindat, the input is provided by people like YOU. That is the only way it happens. Talk is cheap. A project like this works best when headed by people who think it is important.
Best regards,
David K. Joyce
24th May 2017 15:16 UTCRalph S Bottrill ๐ Manager
24th May 2017 20:29 UTCRolf Luetcke Expert
25th May 2017 09:48 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager
25th May 2017 12:22 UTCDavid K. Joyce Expert
Your approach is what i've been suggesting. I guess we need the ore-geologist type participants to chime in on needs/wants.
If I was a geologist interested in, say, VMS deposits, though, I would find it useful to have access to a database, like mindat, with thousands of localities, with deposit types categorized by deposit type such as VMS, skarn, etc. That way, it might be possible to search and examine minerals, ores and rocks from all deposits of that type in the database.
Is there a way to have a pull down menu FOR EACH LOCALITY that would have the agreed upon deposit type lists that could be selected for each deposit by knowledgeable people?
David K Joyce
25th May 2017 12:54 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager
25th May 2017 16:19 UTCAlfred L. Ostrander
Perhaps this needs to be approached in the manner Mindat originally started. Localities were listed and photos began to come in. Mineral lists were not very complete at all. Some aren't very complete even today. The thing is, information keeps coming. If a section for a locality contains no information in a petrolgy section, so what? That doesn't mean information will not be presented at a later date.
To me this is akin to photos taken of localities. Many of us do enjoy the history in the manner the Mineralogical Record provides photos both historical and contemporary. Mindat already does some of that also.
I suggest we do what we can as we can.
25th May 2017 16:38 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
We are working together to produce unified definitions for all of these things so that we can interoperate better.
26th May 2017 00:55 UTCJon Aurich
26th May 2017 01:34 UTCJon Aurich
26th May 2017 02:08 UTCKyle Beucke ๐
At the risk of sounding like a jerk, how do you know this is high grade? Was it given to you by a miner? What is the history of THIS specimen? Yes, we can't identify any silver minerals from the photo, but have you, in person, with this specimen? Again, not making any assumptions here, but just because we have a quartz vein with typical epithermal textures does not mean any silver mineralization is present. It could easily be pyrite (and little else) in quartz.
Thanks for your contribution,
Kyle
26th May 2017 02:39 UTCJon Aurich
26th May 2017 02:54 UTCJon Aurich
26th May 2017 02:58 UTCDoug Daniels
26th May 2017 08:33 UTCRalph S Bottrill ๐ Manager
Jolyon, good to hear of some progress in this direction. Gregg and I are willing to help at least. Can we get some interim updates of what is being discussed?
30th May 2017 22:45 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
31st May 2017 03:23 UTCJon Aurich
1st Jun 2017 00:00 UTCRalph S Bottrill ๐ Manager
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 ยฉ 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 26, 2024 08:57:02
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are ยฉ 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 26, 2024 08:57:02