URGENT MESSAGE: We need $75,000 to survive. Click here to find out why.
Log InRegister
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 Educators
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
StatisticsThe ElementsUsersBooks & MagazinesMineral MuseumsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice Settings
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day Gallery

Pending approval

Posted by Cindy Hasler  
Cindy Hasler August 10, 2017 04:25AM
Just wondering how long does it take to get a picture approved
Don Windeler August 10, 2017 08:01AM

I am a regular, non-manager user. My experience is that the vast majority of my photos have been approved between crazy quick (a few hours) out to a week, with the norm being a day or two. As I understand it, different managers have varying geographic remits, so you can periodically get a longer delay if the main approver for your region is off duty away from MinDat for a bit. Sometimes things may also take longer if you have something potentially controversial or of uncertain ID.

And one should always expect a delay after major shows like Tucson, as everyone and their brother is heaving photos of their new favorite children into an approval traffic jam.

All of this is done by volunteers, so I try stay mellow when I upload something -- though I'll confess to to checking my "newest photos" way more than I should once I've crammed it all into the system! (And a big thanks to all those taking care of the approval process.)

Keith Compton August 10, 2017 08:08AM
Hi Cindy

I note that someone (not me) has questioned the identity of your three prasiolite photos, hence the delay.

Certainly from my perspective they just look like quartz.


Paul De Bondt August 10, 2017 11:10AM
Cindy, your specimens are not prasiolite.
This is prasiolite : https://www.mindat.org/gallery.php?min=40112 and is way from what you have uploaded.
Please change the " prasiolite " in quartz and they will get through.


Cindy Hasler August 10, 2017 11:32AM

Good morning, I read the description of prasiolite and it said green Quartz. Isn't this green?
Wayne Corwin August 10, 2017 12:00PM
why is the photo labled amethyst_6310.jpg ?
that may cause confusion, if it's supposed to be prasiolite.
Cindy Hasler August 10, 2017 12:06PM
Just a file name
The specimens are from a amethyst deposit
Jolyon & Katya Ralph August 10, 2017 12:07PM
I personally don't see any problem with this being labelled 'prasiolite'. As Cindy states this is green (nice association with the amethystine colours too).

Yes, it's quartz. But if we're going to allow varietal names such as 'amethyst', 'smoky quartz' etc on mindat then I see no reason to prevent this being called 'prasiolite'.

If this isn't prasiolite then we need a much clearer definition of what prasiolite is on the prasiolite page.
Jolyon & Katya Ralph August 10, 2017 12:10PM
Note that this one https://www.mindat.org/photo-836353.html can't be described as 'prasiolite', but the other two photos can.
Peter Nancarrow August 10, 2017 12:48PM
It isn't clear in the photo above [https://www.mindat.org/forum.php?addon,6,module=embed_images,file_id=71551] whether the specimen is really green coloured quartz (i.e. can therfore be called 'prasiolite'), or is simply quartz which appears coloured in part due to having green inclusions or some green mineral showing through from behind it. If it is the latter it should not be termed prasiolite.

Pete N.
Paul De Bondt August 10, 2017 12:49PM
Dangerous statement Jolyon.
What if somebody call a chlorite or hedenbergite included quartz, prasiolite ?
Jolyon & Katya Ralph August 10, 2017 12:58PM
As I said before

> If this isn't prasiolite then we need a much clearer definition of what prasiolite is on the prasiolite page.

And this is associated with amethyst, which gives some good confidence that it is a true 'prasiolite' and not included with chlorite or whatever
Keith Compton August 10, 2017 01:00PM

I note that in the Canadian Mineralogist (46, 111-124) "An Investigation of Greenish Quartz found at the Thunder Bay Amethyst Mine Panorama, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, and Similar Localities" by Laura B, HEBERT and George R. ROSSMAN that they discuss the occurrence of greenish Quartz. They don't call it Prasiolite.

However, given that Prasiolite is a term for green quartz, I guess the two specimens qualify.

I note also that according to the geology.com website Prasiolite is heat treated Amethyst.
"A small number of amethyst deposits contain material that turns a yellowish green to green color at about 500 degrees Celsius."

I'm forever learning !!


Cindy Hasler August 10, 2017 01:16PM

Here is another photo of the one that is not approved. Looks green but with a coating
Alfredo Petrov August 10, 2017 01:39PM
The classic "Prasiolite" from the Kaczawskie mountains, Poland, is more of a "greenish brown" than a "green".
Jolyon & Katya Ralph August 10, 2017 01:41PM
That's indeed true. But what is the coloring agent in that, and how does that compare to this green quartz? I believe it's the same, ie Fe2+ from the sequence Fe2+ = prasiolite, Fe3+ = citrine, Fe4+ = amethyst

very very simplified of course.
Uwe Kolitsch August 10, 2017 01:50PM
"Looks green but with a coating"
Jolyon & Katya Ralph August 10, 2017 01:54PM
Yes, if it is green then the photos don't do it justice, and would therefore be miseading to post the photo as an example of prasiolite here, which is why it will not get approved under that name.

The other two were much clearer
David Von Bargen August 10, 2017 01:58PM
If you read the two articles (by Nassau and Lameiras) , it appears that the green color is caused by unpaired free electrons and not Fe (although the Fe has an effect on creating the free electrons).
Nassau seems to think that green quartz (at least from Brazil) is distinct from the "greened" amethyst.
Cindy Hasler August 10, 2017 06:33PM
Just wondering why the 2 specimens that were approved as prasiolite have been removed from the prasiolite page
Amir C. Akhavan August 12, 2017 09:56AM
Removal reverted. One photo now featured on prasiolite page.
Cindy Hasler August 12, 2017 10:59PM
Thank you
Cindy Hasler August 12, 2017 11:18PM

Crown jewel mine
Thunder Bay, Ontario
John Montgomery August 13, 2017 12:32AM
Wow Cindy... that's cool and sure looks green!
Regards to Bram
Costas Constantinides August 13, 2017 01:15AM
Have dug for quartz in the N.T. Australia .The surface material was a light sea green.A little deeper it was dual coloured ie green and purple..Deeper still it was the amethyst colour. Where does this fit into the Fe2/Fe3 scheme. It seems in this case the sun/heat exposure had an effect on the colour. The green colour is the same as most of the material photographed and called prasiolite in this discussion.?????

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2017 01:26AM by Costas Constantinides.
Ralph Bottrill August 14, 2017 03:15AM
Hi Costas
I have seen a similar effect in amethyst from near Broken Hill, but a thin section suggested the green colour of bleached material may be due to numerous extremely fine inclusions of micaceous minerals.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Mineral and/or Locality  
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 1993-2018, except where stated. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us Current server date and time: June 22, 2018 08:13:27
Go to top of page