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

Improving Mindat.orgPhotos 805457 and 805453

23rd Feb 2017 14:17 UTCLarry Maltby Expert

These two photos up-loaded yesterday are named fordite. Fordite is not a mineral. It is layered paint as correctly described. It is a human artifact. Both of these artifacts are shown in the data base as minerals. It would seem more appropriate to show them in the “other” category.

23rd Feb 2017 15:57 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Currently, we have no apt category for such artificial stuff. "Other" can only be chosen for photos.

23rd Feb 2017 17:28 UTCDennis Tryon

After closer inspection, I think it might be chevroletite.

23rd Feb 2017 18:07 UTCDoug Schonewald

It could also be moparite

23rd Feb 2017 18:30 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

Here shouldn't to be place for such 'artifacts'.

23rd Feb 2017 19:11 UTCNiels Brouwer

My first gut reaction was exactly the same as Pavel's - what's a manmade 'species' doing in a mineralogy database? That can't be appropriate, surely.

But the reality is that those boundaries between manmade materials and natural rocks and minerals can be rather vague. Recently someone was wondering why he couldn't find a Strunz classification for things such as opalite. The -ite suffix might give the impression it is a natural mineral, just like fordite (or the other great name suggestions above) may seem to indicate a mineral named after some mineralogist called Ford.

Therefore I think it is perfect if people come across it here on Mindat rather than some random other website, so at least we can clearly explain what kind of mineralogical nonsense is sold in the lapidary and healing world.

23rd Feb 2017 21:35 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

I am inclined to agree with Niels, we try to be fairly inclusive here, to give people an opportunity to discover what their gems, ornamental materials, mineraloids, rocks and such like really are. So we list things like slag, goldstone, bitumen, tiger-eye, atlantisite, etc, whether they are synthetic or trade names, etc, even if they irritate the purists. Most of the gem and ornamental photos were moved to Gemdat, but there is a lot to be said for having at least one photo in Mindat, as it's unsure if Gemdat is being maintained. Also photos of some stuff like marble are only on Gemdat and should be copied or moved back to Mindat as rocks are now fully described. Some mineraloids like bitumen still lack any descriptions or classification also.

23rd Feb 2017 21:48 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Nothing wrong with mineralogists (professional or hobby) studying synthetic materials. Look in the American Mineralogist - There are often research papers on synthetic materials. If you are a purist, you wouldn't want to display anthropogenic substances in your collection, but we'd be remiss in our educational duties if we didn't show them on Mindat, at the very least for comparison purposes.

23rd Feb 2017 23:15 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

If you are so objective, why not include in database polystyrol, rubber, molybdenum steel, wood, neizilber, freon, paper usual and coated, celluloid, acryl, aniline etc.? Is this database mineralogical or I am wrong? Are you really sure, that we should to discuss here the subtleties of the terminology is this chevroletite or fordite!?

24th Feb 2017 00:22 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Pavel, I think "chevroletite" was meant as a joke, not a serious suggestion ;-)

...but "fordite" does need to be included in the database (and was already added by someone) because it has been used in jewelry and the pseudo-mineralogical "-ite" suffix will make people look it up here, where they'll find out it's artificial. So, educational purpose served. Adding paper, rubber, wood and freon to the database might be less useful, as no one is likely to come to Mindat to look up the properties of those things ;-)

24th Feb 2017 03:06 UTCSteve Stuart Expert

I looked at the two images in question. Both specimens are attributed to alluvial localities that have many other real minerals listed. This implies that these were found on the beach somewhere in Florida. Actually, the text says that these came off a graffiti-covered bridge! An entrepreneur in Detroit is crafting and selling jewelry made from multiple layers of paint extracted from graffiti-covered buildings. Fordite is specifically tied to the paint deposits from old automotive plants in Michigan, and has nothing to do with graffiti. So, these two images are not of fordite!

Mindat should not be posting any fordites or graffiti-ites. They are not minerals, even though people make jewelry out of them.

Thanks,

Steve Stuart

24th Feb 2017 15:00 UTCLarry Maltby Expert

Interesting comments all!

I offer the following comments as “food for thought”. Whatever the final outcome on this subject is fine with me. I brought this up because the layered paint was listed as a mineral on the locality page for both of these photos. That is blatantly wrong. However, I suggested the “other” category for the photos because photos attributed to a Mindat locality in the “other” category are shown on the locality page under a miscellaneous heading not under the mineral heading. It seems like the real decision is, is a photo of layered paint acceptable under the miscellaneous heading?

I will take a crack at trying to explain what the unfortunate name “fordite” is. I worked for 39 years at the Ford Motor Company but I retired 22 years ago. This is what I recall. When a car/truck body enters the paint booth at an assembly plant it is attached to a reusable frame or skid. After the body is painted it moves into an oven and the paint is baked on. At some point down the line the body is removed and the skid is recycled to carry another body into the paint both. Thus there is layer after layer of high quality baked on enamel in multiple colors built up on the skids.

Sometime around the late 50’s a guy gets the assignment to clean the skids. He breaks off the layered paint in chunks up to two inches thick and says, “Wow, this looks just like an agate, I wonder if this will cut and polish?” A new name and a new product are born.

24th Feb 2017 21:42 UTCEd Clopton 🌟 Expert

I concur with those who say that from an educational standpoint Mindat is well positioned to provide an answer to those coming to us in good faith to find out what "fordite" really is. (I've also see it labeled "Detroit agate" in jewelry--that avoids the fordite vs. chevroletite problem, provided it came from a plant somewhere in the Detroit metro area.) Since fordite appears in jewelry sold at rock & mineral shows, it is reasonable to include it here somewhere.

Fordite clearly is not a mineral and does not belong in the species list for any locality. Perhaps it could reside in the glossary if the entry could be found readily by a newcomer using the basic "Search Mindat" field at the top of the home page. Larry's explanation would be a good starting point for a definition.

25th Feb 2017 01:06 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

The photos have been made user-only. Nice as they are they do not belong in any locality hierarchy.

Jolyon

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: May 6, 2024 19:09:37

Go to top of page