New Year, New Website Update!

Jan 9, 2022

We are excited to start off 2022 with the launch of our new and improved website experience, with many changes to freshen up the overall experience for our customers!

While at its core, the website remains mostly the same, we’ve reorganized by condensing menus to make navigation easier as well as adding a few new and exciting features to make our website more user friendly for exploring our thousands of listings.

Learn more about our updates and changes below!

NAVIGATION CHANGES:

We’ve condensed our navigation menus into a single row of options to make things easy:

The LEARN menu contains pages where you can discover more about The Arkenstone and its staff, as well as a host of links and other resources to learn more about minerals and the mineral collecting hobby.

The SHOP menu contains all of our various gallery pages, plus a BRAND NEW general browse page. There is also a direct link to an advanced search for customers who know exactly what they are looking for. You can also find information on our custom base services, as well as important ordering information.

HOMEPAGE CHANGES:

We’ve given our homepage a facelift, condensing it down to focus on handpicked featured specimens and galleries as well as a BRAND NEW section featuring all three of our instagram accounts for easy reference. 

Also, the blog excerpts have been redesigned, and our blog page now has a viewable archive so you can easily access older posts quickly.

SPECIMEN PAGES:

Lookout for the ‘payment plan available’ text on specimens that qualify for our payment plan program. Where available, you can click on the text to view the terms before reaching out! We are excited to be able to offer this service more widely to our customers to allow for some room to ‘stretch’ for your next great specimen. (Info also available here!)

WHAT HASN’T CHANGED:

As always, you can still create an account via the login button in the top right of the page. This will allow you to save specimens to your own wishlist for future reference (via the heart on each specimen page found on the top left of the specimen photo). 

Our purchase process still remains the same. We maintain a large physical gallery with thousands of specimens available for sale on display, many of which are also listed online. We want to ensure the specimen you would like to purchase is still available before invoicing, so please allow 1-2 business days for us to confirm. We are closed on weekends and will typically follow up on any inquiries from the weekend on Monday.

We will continue updating our website regularly with exciting new updates from special collections, new finds, and general inventory. Our team is working tirelessly to bring a host of new material to the website in 2022 and beyond, so we strongly recommend signing up for our newsletter to receive email notifications when we release new material for sale. A link to sign up is available toward the footer site-wide.

We hope we worked out any issues, but if you find a bug or have any feedback, we'd love to hear from you at admin@iRocks.com.

Getting to know the mind behind The Arkenstone - Dr. Rob Lavinsky

Jan 8, 2022

There are numerous illustrations of the 17th-century phrase, “One good turn deserves another.” By most accounts, it appears Dr. Rob Lavinsky’s life is one such example.

The “one good turn” that inspired Lavinsky, owner and founder of The Arkenstone Gallery of Fine Minerals, to take the path he has and mindfully do countless “good turns” in response, took place in Ohio during the mid-1980s. “I was introduced to minerals at the age of 12 through the Columbus, Ohio, Rock & Mineral Society (www.columbusrockandmineralsociety.org/), and was fortunate to have many generous mentors there,” said Lavinsky. “The club adopted me, taught me, let me into the library they shared. It was immersion immediately! Without such mentors, I would never have entered the hobby.” 

Rob mining pyrite in Spain

It’s safe to assume, more than a few people with a keen interest in rocks, gemstones, minerals, and fossils are also grateful to the members of the Columbus mineral club for introducing Lavinsky to these remarkable fields of natural science. The influence, education, and encouragement of Columbus mineral club members Carlton Davis and John Medici inspired and equipped Lavinsky to become a part-time mineral dealer by the time he was 14. The learning also included working with and for seasoned field collectors Neal and Chris Pfaff throughout his junior high and high school years. The after-school and summer job allowed  Lavinsky to amass a personal collection and develop an inventory to sell. 

While he was in college studying for a career in genetic engineering, he formed what would become his career purpose,  The Arkenstone. Initially, as Lavinsky explained, he saw it as a way to do something he enjoyed and pay his way through college while studying for a career in medical research. Just as he had in his youth, Lavinsky forged ahead, taking “the road less traveled” by incorporating email swap/sell lists, as early as 1991. Ultimately, he created one of the largest and earliest (1996) websites featuring an inventory of gem, mineral, and fossil specimens. During this time, he continued to buy and sell at mineral shows, including the Tucson Gem and Mineral Show®, where he became a “Main Show” dealer, a position he continues to enjoy 30-plus years later.

teal and purple fluorite from China
Specimen of fluorite with calcite, from a single pocket at the Yaogangxian mine,
Chenzhou district, Hunan Province, China, known to have produced just three such
specimens, and one of Dr. Rob’s favorite Chinese mineral specimen. 17.5cm, Joe Budd Photo.

Lavinsky, balancing business, and graduate studies, successfully earned a Ph. D. in Molecular Genetics. Upon completing his studies — while awaiting the birth of his first child — he debated pursuing a career in biotechnology or becoming a full-time mineral dealer. As Lavinsky explained, either path would have been fulfilling and, in the ensuing years, have both significantly contributed to his life.

“I could have gone into science and enjoyed it. But, playing with nature’s beauty always warred with a real job choice, and won out in the end,” said the life-long collector. Interestingly, it’s Lavinsky’s fascination with fossils that serves as a point of connection with opals. As he explained, when opal replaces a mineral or fossil, which illustrates a combining of the gem world with that of natural history, the synergy of the two is most amazing.

He went on to say, “I do not regret being a scientist or the years of training to think a certain way. I believe it helps me appreciate nature more and be better at what I do (more organized, and more disciplined on the business side.)”

Lavinsky’s analytical mindset, preparedness, and profoundly inquisitive personality is at the core of his business operations, which is a significant benefit during uncertain and unusual times, such as 2020.

“My business was vertical, not just high or low-price range, and so I am luckily prepared for these strange times,” commented Lavinsky, who employs a team of 14 people, including staff in China responsible for sourcing, and actively buying specimens daily. “I have five years of inventory amassed, a great team here in Dallas, and a large customer base to show good things to.”

He went on to say, “After Sept. 11, 2001, and the 2008-2009 crashes, minerals and the mineral collecting game exploded on the other side within two years. I expect it will do so again with the organic growth of new collectors and customers, which is great news for all of us!”

In addition to remaining optimistic, flexible, and proactive, and engaged with clients and the mineral collecting community at large, Lavinsky and his team pay close attention to what can be learned during these times. Among the most important aspects of the business that The Arkenstone team keeps top of mind are the clients.

“The collector comes first. Build and help build collections the way we would want to, as collectors ourselves – my core team is ONLY made up of people who are collectors or from collecting families. We are drinking the same juice,” Lavinsky explained. “I want to build collections over decades – we are best with the serious collectors who want long-term relationships, not the fly-by-night folks who just want to buy pretty rocks out of a rock shop.”

Whether he’s traveling to China, working with employees on various projects, buying, selling, exhibiting and speaking at shows, or serving as sponsor and host of the Dallas Mineral Collecting Symposium (an event he co-founded with Gene Meieran in 2011), Lavinsky strives to give back to the mineral community that did so much for him, and continually do “one good turn.”

graphic headline 5 facts about Dr. Rob Lavinsky

1. He is a workaholic, which is why he was able to build his company website in the early years of available technology and expand on it over the years

2. He actually LIKES all of the travel he does to China, and he now speaks Chinese. He also says it’s common to feel relaxed as soon as he gets on a plane.

3. He loves the Arkenstone staff like brothers and sisters, and with that, he does take orders from them, routinely enough for it to be weird, he says.

4. His collecting passion started with fossils and then drifted into minerals when he was 12 years old.

5. While he did indeed earn his Ph.D. in genetic engineering before becoming a full-time mineral dealer, some people in his life thought that might not be the case, as evidenced by the apparent betting pool against his completing his degree before following his passion for minerals.

Originally published in Rocks & Gems Magazine, Illustrious Opal Issue

The Bement Collection of Minerals

Jun 16, 2021

The Bement Collection of Minerals is one of just celebrity, and in the quality of its contents, the average beauty, in some cases, the unique perfection of its specimens, secures a deserved eminence. It is a collection naturally, which abounds in very beautiful and very rare and scientifically precious mineral examples. It represents the sifted and compressed results of a lifetime of collecting, in which the widest latitude of liberal appraisement of specimens has been met on the part of Mr. Bement by as boundless a generosity. There can be no question as to its importance— Gratacap (1912)

Clarence S. Bement

Clarence Sweet Bement (1843–1923), a manufacturer in Philadelphia, spent 35 years of his time, money, and effort in acquiring his magnificent mineral collection. He began to collect minerals shortly after the end of the Civil War, in about 1866; continually adding to it until its purchase from him by the banker and philanthropist J.P. Morgan in 1901, who presented it as a gift to the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) that same year. Bement sold his collection only after his eyesight began to fail him (Seaman, 1968). The Bement collection is considered to be the finest mineral collection ever assembled in the United States (MATRIX, 1989a). The mineral Bementite was named after him in 1887.

Bement, the greatest American mineral collector

Mineral collecting

Bement patronized the leading mineral dealers of his days. He purchased specimens over the years from Charles Herman, Albert H. Perereit, George L. English, Charles H. Pennypacker, William Niven, Maynard Bixby, Prof. Henry A. Ward, Lazard Cahn, Dr. A.E. Foote, and many others. G.L. English, one of the most noted dealers of that era, considered Bement to be “our great American collector” (Seaman, 1968). Writing in the Mineral Collector of 1901, dealer Charles H. Pennypacker stated: “in the decades that have past, again and again, has one of these, “pennywise and pound foolish” people asked me how it was that all of the fine things went into the Bement collection. I would reply: That’s an easy one. You belong to the skinflint fraternity. You are always afraid that you will pay too much for a mineral, and when you find out that some other collector has secured a better specimen than yours at a price less than you paid, you mourn as one without hope. None of these traits exist in Mr. Bement, he long since understood the situation. There is no standard value, there is no rule whereby mineral specimens may be accessed” (Seaman, 1968).

Bement acquired numerous specimens of minerals by exchange or purchase with many collectors and dealers in Europe and America making his collection labels some Who’s Who of the mineral collectors of the latter half of the 19th century. A long list of names is given in Seaman (1968). At various times, Bement secured the privilege of picking out the best samples from the minerals accumulated by earlier collectors. He purchased part of the Norman Spang collection in 1882. In the same year, he also bought the Hidden collection, that of Baron Braun of Vienna and some others. He secured fine Swiss minerals from the Burke collection of Bern and Graves Mountain rutiles from the collections of both the Stephensons, father, and son. Collectors and dealers would often let him cherry-pick the best specimens before the rest would be sold at retail (e.g. Ernest Schernikow and Joseph Willcox collections, see Canfield, 1923).

A Neudorf specimen of Galena & Siderite crystals, Neudorf, Harz, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, ex. C.S. Bement / AMNH / H. Obodda. Source: The Tricottet Collection.

The best crystallized minerals and display specimens available were always sought by Bement for his collection. An example is shown above, in the present case, a fine Neudorf Galena specimen with Siderite crystals, one of the top “holy grails” of sophisticated collectors of previous generations. This cabinet specimen features excellent Siderite rhombs of iridescent golden-brown colour, on modified cuboctahedral Galenas with good metallic luster (all on sparkling Quartz). The intergrown Galenas range up to 1.8 cm across and the Siderites reach up to 1.6 cm on edge while the specimen measures 9.6 x 7.5 x 6.0 cm.

Some published correspondence between Bement and George F. Kunz provides some anecdotal information about his collecting process (Conklin, 1986). A rare glimpse into the atmosphere of Bement’s study is found in an 1895 letter, part of The Tricottet Collection. It reads: “I duly received your favor of October 18th, and would say in reply that I shall be at home next Sunday afternoon, ready to receive you and your wife, as suggested. Please come rather early, if you can, — say at two o’clock, so as to have as much daylight as possible, for my mineral room is very dark”.

Source: The Tricottet Collection.

Other collections

Let us note that Bement also assembled one of the finest collections of U.S. coins. He was also an assiduous collector of rare books and fine prints. His collection of books, begun in 1890, formed the nucleus of the Harry Elkins Widener Library, later on, presented to Harvard University. He also made a collection of Continental paper money, which was merged into the Chapman collection in Philadelphia. In the last part of his life, he devoted himself to the collecting of ancient Greek coins and owned a large number of valuable Greek and Roman gold and silver coins (MATRIX, 1989a). There is evidence that Bement, at one time, liquidated his books to finance his mineral purchases (letter from Oct. 16, 1896, in Conklin, 1986) but the two interests overlap for many years (MATRIX, 1989b).

The Bement collection at the AMNH

The Bement-Morgan collection

John Pierpont Morgan (1837–1913), who we crossed paths with in other articles (e.g. Bernard Franck collection), presented the Bement collection as a gift to the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in 1901. At that time, the collection numbered some 12,000 specimens of minerals and contained some 580 meteorites. It formed the nucleus of both the mineral collection and the meteorite collection of the AMNH. Morgan had paid $100,000 for the extraordinary collection. His largesse to the AMNH, of which he was a Trustee, had started in the late 19th century with the $15,000 purchase of the collection of “Gems and Precious Stones from North America” arranged for the Exposition Universelle in Paris by George F. Kunz of Tiffany and Company. Known as the Tiffany-Morgan Collection of Gems, the collection was further expanded after Morgan commissioned Kunz to acquire fabulous specimens from around the world (AMNH website).

The so-called Bement-Morgan collection of minerals has been exhibited in the Morgan Hall, which is pictured on the rare postcard shown below. Gratacap (1912) explains that “its present position in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City is of incomparable value to all students and collectors and dealers. It is placed in a central, accessible, and finely equipped stadium. It can all be seen, well seen, and seen at all times.” It means that the mineral specimens displayed on this page once sojourned in those glass cabinets!

‘The Bement Collection of Minerals’ in Gratacap (1912) & its display in the Morgan Hall (postcard). Source: The Tricottet Collection.

Historic Scheelite crystal from Traversella Mine, Piedmont, Italy, ex. C.S. Bement / AMNH / E. Rosenzweig. Source: The Tricottet Collection.

Specimen labelling

Specimens from the Bement collection at the AMNH carry a painted inventory number and are accompanied by an AMNH cardboard label. An example was shown previously (see Neudorf specimen) and a second one here on the left (Scheelite crystal from Traversella, Italy — to be described in more detail later). The AMNH also kept the original Bement labels, glued on collection index cards. Those index cards provide the following information: original label, description, name, locality, collection, value, number, and number of specimens. Mineral specimens deaccessioned from the AMNH only come with facsimiles of those cards, as the AMNH keeps all index cards for archiving purposes. The index card then indicates that the specimen has been exchanged, with the name of the new holder and the date of the exchange. An example is shown below, for our Neudorf specimen (we learn that the specimen originally cost 4$ in c. 1900 and that it was traded to Herb Obodda on March 6, 1980):

Facsimile of a Bement specimen index card at the AMNH. Notice the label penned by Bement himself, glued on the card. Source: The Tricottet Collection.

The Gratacap (1912) collection catalogue

The Bement collection is described in ‘The Bement Collection of Minerals’, in the second part of the book ‘Popular Guide to Minerals’ by Gratacap (1912). Louis Pope Gratacap (1850–1917) became Curator of Mineralogy at the AMNH in 1890. It was under his direction that the 12,000-piece Bement mineral collection was sorted, catalogued, and displayed in the Morgan Hall of Minerals (see postcard above). It was considered in 1918 by Kunz to be the best-displayed collection of minerals (and gems) in the United States or abroad (Kunz, 1918). Gratacap, along with Kunz, was one of the founders of the New York Mineralogical Club in 1886.

The classic, old-time example of Scheelite from the historic Italian locale of Traversella, shown above, is listed in Gratacap (1912) (only a limited number of the 12,000+ specimens are!). This specimen consists of a modified, pseudo-octahedral crystal with sharply defined faces, marked luster, and a deep orangey colour (dimensions: 3.9cm x 3.3cm x 2cm). The Scheelite paragraph reads “… Bohemia, Saxony, Germany at Guttenen, Switzerland, France, Scotland, England, Silesia, are represented with, of course, a good deal of emphasis laid on Bohemia. Of these the noteworthy members are 16899, 16901, 16902, 16903, 16905, (tabular, interesting, base and pyramid, crystals, curiously etched, and minutely pitted), 16906 (distorted, beautifully shagreened faces, translucent), 16907, 16909 (apparently two generations of crystals), (16918, 16919, (magnificent golden-red octahedron), 16928, 16929, (a very large yellow opaque octaedron, with faces impressed, striated, and curved)…

The Scheelite specimen listed in Gratacap (1912). Source: The Tricottet Collection.

Let us conclude by quoting a brochure on ‘The Final Disposition of some American Collections of Minerals’ compiled by Frederick A. Canfield and published in 1923. On the Bement collection, we read: “This was the finest private collection of minerals ever made. It is the best public collection in America — it has but two rivals in the world.” The final question is: what are the two other collections that Canfield was referring to, which rivaled the Bement collection?

This is a modified version of an excerpt from a book in preparation on the history of collecting, courtesy of The Tricottet Collection.

References

Conklin, L.H. (1986), Notes and Commentaries on Letters to George F. Kunz, Selected correspondence including letters of Clarence S. Bement. Self-published, New Canaan, 137 pp. [copy in TC: Association copy, inscribed by the author to collector and friend William W. Pinch: “4–13–91 For Bill — Few people have known me longer, and I hope, not better, Larry”, with Pinch library hard stamp]

Gratacap, L.P. (1912), A Popular Guide to Minerals, With chapters on the Bement Collection of Minerals in the American Museum of Natural History… D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, 330 pp. & 74 plates.

Kunz, G.F. (1918), Biographical sketch of the late L.P. Gratacap. The American Museum Journal, 18 (4), 302–304.

MATRIX (1989a), Clarence Sweet Bement 1843–1923 (by George Frederick Kunz, edited by Joseph J. Peters and Charles L. Pearson, Jr.). MATRIX, 1 (3), 42–43.

MATRIX (1989b), Clarence S. Bement — Book Collector. MATRIX, 2 (2), 30.

Peters, J.J., Pearson, C.L. (1990), Clarence S. Bement: The consummate collector. The Mineralogical Record, 21, 47-62 [WANTED]

Seaman, D.M. (1968), The Clarence S. Bement Collection. Rocks & Minerals, 43 (11), 803-808.

In Memorium: Francis Allegra (1957-2015)

Apr 7, 2021

We are proud to offer on behalf of the family estate, the full and intact collection of the late Judge Francis Allegra, noted collector and MR legal columnist, coming up for auction on MineralAuctions.com.

Auction Open: April 15, 2021 at 6:00PM CT through May 1, 2021 at 6:00PM CT!

Click here to bid on the Francis Allegra Collection

In light of the upcoming auction, we'd like to revisit some memories of Fran, originally published in 2017 as a booklet distributed at our Dallas Symposium.


Many people here will remember Fran Allegra from the Tucson shows, and from his (free) legal advice to many of us over the years. I wanted to share a few personal memories about Fran: his role in this event; his collecting; and a few stories as we remember him as a fantastic speaker at the first inaugural year of this Symposium in 2011.

Fran was instrumental in creating what is now the DMCS, from the beginning. Gene Meieran pushed me to grow this event from the two evening talks we had at our gallery grand opening party in 2010 (at which he was the very first volunteer speaker, along with Astronaut and Senator Harrison Schmitt), into a formal Symposium. Gene met Fran through me shortly beforehand and they became fast friends, especially with all of Gene’s travel to DC. As I recall, a coincidental lunch or dinner with Gene and Fran in DC or Dallas was the next discussion of that idea, and then Fran actively helped us work on the format and the planning so that the first year revolved around “Museums and Philanthropy,” as a common theme of the event. Never having hosted a Symposium, I admit now that we winged it for the first few years, based on advice from such friends. 

Allegra Tribute Case at the Tucson Show, arranged by Daniel Trinchillo/FMI

Despite his busy schedule (at the time he was overseeing a famous legal battle between the government and an undercover FBI officer who wrote a tell-too-much book about his experiences inside the Hell’s Angels biker gang), he volunteered to support us and be a speaker. His idea was to tie in minerals and museums, with the law: how does tax law work in the interplay of donations and philanthropy, for those of us who might donate items to museums? I was dubious. His sense of humor can be rather dry, and it was about law and lawyers... but he said to trust him. As a speaker in the first year, he surprised many who did not know him well. Who knew a lawyer could be so funny? I heard many people echo my thoughts in that first year, that his talk on Tax Law was the surprise comedy break we needed in a long day of testing this format, even amid other enjoyable talks. (For those who have not seen this talk, it is on Symposium DVD #1, from the Min Record in January 2011, and we have extra copies as well). His advice, and his ideas, are still completely relevant today and we encourage anybody interested to watch that talk. 

At lunch after his talk in 2011, people kept coming up to him and saying things like “I didn’t know judges had a sense of humor,” to which he replied to the effect of “I’m not so easy on the bench as I am with mineral people.”  He used a specific piece from his own collection to illustrate in his talk what makes a good specimen (as opposed to a bad choice which invites trouble later) for high-multiple return on a tax donation, that could stand up to a later audit and inspection. The piece he used was a spectacular deep blue hemimorphite from Mexico, a superb piece that he had purchased at Tucson from a European dealer as a Smithsonite from the Kelly Mine (for a fair price, even as a smithsonite!). His point was that an argument could be made for a high-multiple valuation of such a piece for donation, based on him finding a “sleeper” and adding information and provenance that was unknown and which increased the importance of the specimen for some museum collections. In his talk, he suggested a conservative appraisal of this piece for donation value might legitimately be 3.5X to 5X on what he paid for it, based on documenting comparables and the difference between a mediocre USA smithsonite and a top-level Mexican hemimorphite. By the end of lunch, he had an offer of 6X from Sandor Fuss, who bought the piece for Bruce Oreck’s collection of Mexico minerals. It sold as the dessert was served. Fran, who intended only to make an academic point by using a nice example of something tangential to his own collection, converted that investment into a significant Colorado Smoky Quartz and Amazonite specimen (shown on the last page of this booklet).

As a friend, Fran was there for any of us with legal issues and questions about philanthropy, what could and could not be posted on the internet, and general advice for those of us dealing with international travel and customs issues. I should probably mention at this point that he advised me when I got arrested by Interpol too, but that is another story for another time and place.

Dealers knew Fran as one of the luckiest collectors out there, from his emergence on the scene in Tucson in the late 1990s. With a family and a rising busy career as a young attorney working for the government, his mineral budget had to be refined to where he would discipline himself and purchase only 1-2 pieces at each show. He was so busy, that he would only be able to attend the Tucson show each year (most years). The lucky/funny thing was, that his mother-in-law met him there and participated in the decision process, and then supported him with a budget to encourage his hobby and enjoyment of the break from his job and stresses. The first time they sat me down and explained to me this situation, I can say I was very impressed with her -  I have never heard of another collector with such a supportive in-law! It was something fun that they shared together, and then he would go home and share with his wife and later his kids. At home, 1999, Fran kept his minerals in his office (Federal Appellate Court) at the Old Red Brick Courthouse across from the White House in DC. We used to joke that it was the most secure mineral collection in the country. I had many parcels stopped by security, at their scanner, and eventually, the security people came to realize that Fran would just be the difficult one in the building. He had lovely wooden custom showcases with glass doors made as built-ins to his office (courtesy of us, the US taxpayers), and always worked from his desk facing the mineral collection, saying that it brought him calm and tranquility. (Looking to the right, one could gaze out the windows at the front door of the White House - a distraction, indeed!). Fran showed his collection to many people, including several Congressmen who collect, and he became close friends with Jeff Post at the Smithsonian and others involved in the mineral world in DC. Anybody passing through would make a pilgrimage to his office for lunch with a view (superb cafeteria food, or Thai takeout, his favorite). As you will read below, Fran drifted to focus on Russian minerals and the USA classics when he could afford them, wheeling and dealing his old pieces to work up, in the end doing business almost exclusively with Wayne Thompson and another two “young punk” dealers who were flexible in trading and helping a growing collector on a budget, as we all grew together from relatively unimportant obscurity in the hobby during the early 1990s: Daniel Trinchillo and myself. In fact, Daniel gave him such a good deal on a Chinese specimen I wanted but could not afford in the 1990s, that I later had to 8X the price, to trade it out of Fran to add it to my own China collection (an Azurite from Anhui I still own today!) Today, Fran’s core collection of USA and Russian classics remains with his family.

Azurite and Malachite - Liufengshan Mine, Anhui, China - 12.5cm. Ex Fran Allegra to Dr. Rob Lavinsky personal collection. Joe Budd Phooto

I will share one of Fran’s favorite stories, that few people could be told at the time. In 2005 or so, a tip from a fellow judge on the Appellate Court led Fran and I to sneak underground at the Bunker Hill Mine (seems safe to tell it now!) while it was the subject of a closure order from the EPA and as it was served by government attorneys. So, Fran served on the DC Appellate Court of Appeals, the final place that cases against or prosecuted by the US Government go, after appealed from a lower District Court, and before they reach the Supreme Court if a decision could not be made by Fran’s colleagues. Fran’s mineral collection was in his office, and all the judges had seen it (we tried and failed to get them to invest in minerals with him!). They knew about minerals, in any case. One day, another judge sitting at lunch next to him said to him that he had just gotten back from a case involving trying to close a Superfund toxic waste site, and had the most surprising experience of being walked through a room at the mine owner’s building that was “a rainbow of color with rocks just like you have in your office on all the walls.” Fran says he kept a poker face, excused himself to call me, then went back and got what info he could. We knew the case was being litigated in Idaho, and there are only so many Superfund waste sites in Idaho and even fewer that the government was actively fighting with the mine owner to close down. I quickly found out that the room this judge must have seen would have to be the stash of Robert “Bob” Hopper, a far-right talk show host in rural Idaho that made Rush Limbaugh look fairly liberal at the time. He had bought the Bunker Hill lead mine out of bankruptcy in the early 1980s and was responsible for allowing the collecting in old tunnels dating to the 1800s that turned up the incredible finds of Pyromorphite that came out in two waves from this old mine, in the mid-1980s and in 1995-1997. Hopper was mining the dumps of already mined material for zinc and other metals, and not bothering to mine the actual lead deposit. Too much work! 

Wayne Sorenson (a well-placed mineral collector who owned the analytical lab down the road in Idaho) and Wayne Thompson (dealer and his friend) handled the sale of the pyromorphite at the time.  I called Wayne Thompson to ask for an introduction to Bob, whom I had never met, and told him about the exciting news Fran had heard from a judge, about this secret stash! Wayne promptly said something to the effect of “oh yeah, I  always meant to go back for that stuff and keep forgetting. I got all the good stuff and Bob is so difficult, that we never bothered.” Upon further clarification, what Wayne meant was that he bought all the things he thought were worth more than $10,000 by standards of 1997.... and then forgot about it for a decade. Well, needless to say, MANY pieces were worth more than that by 2005, and also Wayne had not even thought about trimming the big ones down to size and cleaning them. Fran and I decided that we might have a different take on what was worth getting, and so I called Bob with Wayne’s info to set up a visit. Luckily, Wayne is a gun-carrying cowboy and they had a good relationship, so I got in the door with that introduction - barely. The more Bob Hopper found out about me, the less he liked me (I had gone to school in California, and was too young to be serious in his mind). I certainly did not mention that my “friend” I would bring with me was another judge on the same court that was trying the governments efforts to shut Hopper down. And a Democrat, no less! Fran and I arranged to meet in Spokane (where we had dinner with Dave Waisman and Fran contributed to the founding ideas of his Texas Fine Mineral Show); and things were all set to drive out to the mine in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, the next morning at 9 AM. While we were at dinner with Waisman, I got a call from Hopper something to the effect of: “the damned EPA **&*&-censored**&$ lawyers are coming tomorrow. I hate those &$&^$ ratbag scum lawyers. Come at 6 AM so we can go underground and avoid them.” Fran and I got up at 3 AM and drove out to meet Bob at the mine as ordered. He also told us to not bring any cameras and not tell any “damn lawyers.”

As I drove up to the mine, with us debating how to introduce him other than as a federal attorney and judge, Fran cringed a little at the signs which stated such homilies as “Just say no to the EPA!” and “This is my mine and my shotgun proves it,” that had been posted near the entry. Bob met us in his office and hurried us into gear - knee-high boots to keep out the toxic lead and arsenic-filled red water that was flooding out of the mine, and hard hats. We went underground through a locked metal mine door and onto a small ore-mover with a mini-locomotive at the front. Fran and I sat in the car in silence while he drove, and chain-smoked, about 1 mile in the dark into the mountain. While driving, Hopper lectured us on how to be quiet and not talk to his employees, how to enjoy the silence, and not to talk to any “damn lawyers” once we got out, because he was fighting the government to keep his mine open in the hopes that someday the largest easy lode of lead in the USA would make him rich beyond dreams - if he could legally mine it. We actually got to the old areas from the original lead and silver mining in the late 1800s (we saw signs to 1890) and used an old man-mover on a generator to go up a few levels, maybe 100 feet up into the mountain from grade level. He had a man there, who we were not allowed to talk to. Fran tried to make small talk but got chewed out for talking to the employee and told that “respect is the highest honor,” and to respect his wish to stop talking. We stopped talking. Did I mention he was carrying a firearm? 

That worker then climbed up the way we had ridden, and we all sat and watched them amiably chain-smoke while they pumped what I was told was pure oxygen from a tank up a 100-foot hole into the one part of the mine where the pyromorphites had been found (the Jersey Vein).  The air was bad up there, and nobody had been up in a long time, so they had to pump some air up. The ladder was about 200 steps nearly straight up through a 4-foot vertical tunnel, from our level to the Jersey Vein. It was at that point that Fran looked at me and calmly announced he was quite comfortable to stay down and “not talk” to the worker but would take a photo of my climbing up to my death. Bob had me lead, and I went up the ladder. Waiting for him, I sat and contemplated Fran’s choice of words. Bob came up and had a 5 minute smoking break in the pure oxygen, to recover from the climb. I worried it would explode us. Then, we took a walk and saw empty pockets all along the vein for maybe 100 meters, culminating in a huge and unreachable ceiling covered with bright orange arsenian pyromorphite that looked like a sunset in our headlight beams. The pockets were cleaned out and rimmed with cigarette butts encrusted in lime and mine goo, so that the butts made a rim around the bottom of each pocket. While we were up there, Fran “not talked” to the worker anyhow, and got a good picture of the goings on at the mine and the number of specimens that had been stashed. On our exit from the mine at noon, Bob was surprised to find the federal attorneys waiting for him, as he thought they would have gone away since he missed their 9 AM meeting. Sure enough, two huge black Escalades were waiting, with Salt Lake City plates. Those lawyers were not going away. So, Bob lined Fran and I up, and took turns rubbing his hands against our legs and chests to get all the gooey, red, lead-stained mud off of our clothes and put it on his overalls, unbuttoned his shirt to let the sweaty smell out, and smeared some mud on his chest for good measure. He then told us to wait in the collection room while he met the attorneys for “a short while,” and directed us to the treasure room we had been waiting for! 

Through the window, we watched him slime his hands on his boots for good measure, and then walk up to them and greet them with a firm muddy handshake. As we turned around, sort of in shock after spending 5 hours underground with this chain-smoking guy and being out of breath and having no water or food, we saw a massive mutt of a dog looking up calmly at us from his bed n the floor on the far side of the approximately 12 x 15-foot room, lined with mineral cases and filled with all colors of pyromorphite. The dog was a guard dog. It was not happy to see us in its space. Fran went to the water cooler, across the room, and it leaped up and growled. What became clear was that we could not cross a line about 5 feet into the room, without the dog making scary faces and noises at us. So, we looked at the closer minerals, leaned over to see others as we could, and waited. Two hours. Finally, Bob was done with his meeting and he came to get us, excused the dog, and we could see the whole room freely. Long story short, we bought some rocks that day, including at least two dozen pieces worth 10k and over, hundreds worth $500-5000 that Wayne had simply not wanted to handle nearly 10 years prior, and the biggest single specimen Bob had ever recovered intact - a monster yellow piece with no repairs from the mid-1980s that was near 2 feet across! Fran’s commission on the tipoff was a number of smaller pieces he traded off and a magnificent, 3-dimensional orange pyromorphite cabinet piece from the mid-1990s finds, that remains in the collection. Bob was in such a good mood after insulting the lawyers for two hours and preparing for his afternoon radio show to talk about it to his listeners that we got a splendid deal and were able to buy much of what I wanted, though it was far too much to take all at once (the rest was later wholesaled out before Bob passed away). Fran and I went home dirty but happy, having to drive all the way back to Spokane to get a hotel and a shower after our long day. I think we were both so tired that we got on the plane the next morning in relief, and he took his prize home with him.

Pyromorphite, Bunker Hill Mine, Idaho - 12.5 x 13.5 x 10 cm, Ex. Francis Allegra. FMI Photo

EPILOGUE

Fran was a strong supporter of this symposium, and he attended 3 of the years during 2011-2014. For 2015, he planned to bring his son Domenic for the first time and also was scheduled as a speaker on a sequel to his 2011 talk on how collectors and museums could work more together through philanthropic donation. Just before his cancer came back, we had scheduled him as a speaker. He was actively considering how to retire from being a judge at age 65 if he did not go on to the Supreme Court under a Democratic president. He taught law at George Washington school of Law for mineral money on the side, and he was thinking to continue to do that while starting a niche business in law advisory related to mineral donations, customs, and estate tax law. As well, Fran talked about being more active with the Mineralogical Record and was starting to write regular columns with Wendell Wilson under the title “Legal Nuggets,” which are all still as relevant now as ever.

A recent note from his son Domenic, now heading to college, shows what an impact he made in involving his oldest son, in particular, in his hobby. “I always wanted to go to the symposium with my father, but he passed away the last day of the 2015 symposium. Thankfully I was able to go to the 2015 Tucson show with him, something that I always dreamed of doing since my youth. I consistently watch my father’s talk on the DVD from the 2011 symposium; it is always great to hear his voice and his “ dad” jokes. After he passed, staying connected with the mineral world has been difficult. I haven’t had the opportunity to attend any shows, but that hasn’t stopped me from keeping in touch with all of his friends. As I head to college in the fall, even though I will not be majoring in geology, I will be studying political science and will hopefully be attending law school to follow in his footsteps.”

I would be remiss without mentioning here that Fran’s other most important activity besides his love of the law and legal matters, and his mineral collecting, was to spend time with his family and kids. He became a gung ho Cub Scout leader, going all out for Denmaster Dad at a time when I was struggling with the responsibility of being only an assistant den leader. Despite his incredibly busy schedule, he pursued the most active involvement possible for a father, and attended nearly all pack meetings and many camp outs. He was an avid counselor for kids as they advanced through Scouts, and toured them to the Courthouse and the Supreme Court on a regular basis. He stayed with his boys through Boy Scouts, and spent hundreds if not thousands of hours supporting their Troop and many other Scouting events on a regional level in Washington DC. Fran was a dedicated Scout father, often changing into Scout gear at the courthouse and going straight to meetings, and then finishing his work late into the nights and early in mornings. 

Fran Allegra with Boy Scouts

-Dr, Robert Lavinsky

August, 2017

Burma and Spinels in my Collection

Mar 17, 2021

By William (Bill) Larson, February 2021

L-R: Beryl (aquamarine), 2.4 cm, Sakhan-gyi, Kyauk-pyat-that Zone; Spinel, 1 cm, Pein-pyit, Pein-pyit Zone; Corundum (ruby), 2.9 cm, Mogok Valley Zone; Forsterite (peridot), 2.6 cm, Pyaung-gaung, Bernardmyo Zone; Spinel, 1.9 cm, Pein-pyit, Pein-pyit Zone; all Mandalay Region, Myanmar (Burma).
William F. Larson collection (L-R: 137, 248, 256, 253, 254); Mark Mauthner photo.

As both a dealer and as a collector of gem crystals and mineral species prized by both the gem and mineral markets, I have collected Burmese Gem minerals in particular now for nearly 30 years. I've traveled to Burma nearly 40 times, including a number of rare trips to the mines directly (very few foreigners were ever allowed in, and only with military escorts and government guides). Fine red or pink spinel crystals, outside of those few in museum collections, were simply nonexistent in the open mineral show markets up until the 1990s; both here in the USA and Europe. Only some rare pieces of blue gray-spinels from Madagascar and a rare few of our own US blue spinel were available. So, spinels were highly sought after on my travels, and actually make up more of my gem Burma collection than the rubies and sapphires you would have expected.

Han Htun inspecting a ruby in his home in Yangon, Myanmar (Burma).
Mark Mauthner photo.

Any collector of rare gem crystals wants beautiful red spinel octahedrons in their collection. Mogok, Burma (now Myanmar) is the world's finest locality! When Dr. Gubelin invited me to be part of the first European group to visit Mogok in 1993, I jumped at the chance. 10 of us were invited and “accompanied” by the military, including fixed machine guns on a convoy, into Mogok, essentially the Wild West of the region at the time. It was a 120 kilometer trip lasting 8 hours in what we called the pain mobile, a Jeep knockoff that you hit your head on the ceiling constantly. We stayed in almost freezing conditions in the center of the town, of perhaps 60,000 people at that time. It was obvious that they all made a living off of gemstones. We got to meet many miners including one I became good friends with, Dr. Saw Nang U. Most of the material they were mining was alluvial, so crystals were rare. Because there was no market for crystals locally, they cut everything! I helped develop this market by teaching them and paying for raw crystals, instead of gemstones.

Bill Larson, two Mogôk gem dealers, Kyaw Thu. Mandalay, Myanmar (Burma).
Mark Mauthner photo.

 
On my first trip I was unable to get any crystals at all, although we were shown a beautiful ruby crystal cluster but with no chance to purchase it. We were able to buy a fantastic 25-carat ruby-colored spinel from the local Yangon annual gem auction, but there was literally not a spinel crystal to be seen. However, I was excited by seeing the ruby in Mogok and started coming into Burma 3 to 4 times per year at my peak travels, as I was always going to Bangkok for gems and that’s only a one hour flight into Yangon if you can get the visa and access to do anything once you are there. However, it became abundantly apparent that the local miners and dealers in Mogok did indeed cut everything even if it was a great crystal, and only produced tiny cut or included gems. I was persistent! I kept asking for natural crystals. None of the major ruby or sapphire dealers were interested in crystals or in the slow money to deal with them and deal with waiting for me to come and see them compared to cutters who pay immediately; so I was dealing with small miners and many geology students anxious to learn, which was actually great in the long run. I taught them by bringing, over the span of 10 years starting in the 1990s, almost 500 books (heavy luggage!) on crystals including the USA gem and mineral magazines. A few caught onto the crystal idea and I started seeing nice topaz crystals. But spinel wasn’t to be seen. 

Spinel (twins); L-R: 1.1, 1.6, 1.9 cm tall. Pein-pyit, Pein-pyit Zone, Mandalay Division, Myanmar (Burma). William F. Larson collection (039); Mark Mauthner photo.

Often, I was not allowed into Mogok for all kinds of reasons of luck or timing, only Yangon and sometimes into Mandalay where dealers would bring rare cut gems. But on my third trip into Mogok, I met a dealer, U Kyaw Thaung, who later started a company in Yangon called the King of Crystals. He had a small cluster of maybe 4 intergrown octahedrons (1-2cm each opaque pinkish-brown but sharp) and it was for me at that time the holy grail! Of course, the moment I really wanted it he pulled it back and told me it was not for sale and he would not sell it. I was crestfallen but tried not to show it however the word soon got around that I would buy crystals (that crazy foreigner!) and I would later get permission to go to Mogok. There are three markets there with a fascinating split of goods: the ladies market in the early morning; a man’s market in the late morning; and the third market in Kyatpian (a small city close to Mogok). In each market, I was shown hundreds of parcels mostly cut gems including synthetics - one has to know a lot because even in the 90s there were fakes and forgeries, and treated goods in the gem market right at the source. Soon, small parcels of tiny to 1/4 inch crystals were shown and as I bought more and more, it became a trend that many beautiful crystals were preserved. In the late 1990’s I was perhaps the only foreigner to visit Mogok actually looking for crystals (more for my own interest and collection, than for resale as a mineral dealer at the time because it really was not cost-effective to buy for resale when you factor in the time and trip costs). Others soon followed but for several years I was able to obtain many amazing things, and most of this collection was assembled on frequent trips between the late 1990s and 2008 before I heavily ramped down my trips there, and restrictions were placed on Burmese imports. Under Ne Win, private dealing was not allowed (Ne Win was Burma's military dictator during the Socialist Burma period of 1962 to 1988) and some things were saved by people. Some started coming out from under beds, once word of my acquisitions spread, and I even obtained many of the pieces in this collection, many of the loose spinels, from old stashes wrapped in newspapers from the 1970s. The spinels shown here from my collection, are almost impossible to obtain today as mining is very curtailed, very industrial for gem rough when it does happen, and in any case, finer crystals were never common. Most of these spinels were therefore found between the 1970s-early 2000s and are not contemporary (I had not added much to the collection since 2008).

Bill Larson inspecting a large epidote specimen. Yangon, Myanmar (Burma).
Mark Mauthner photo.

Of course with the internet, the miners soon caught on and by the early 2000s, prices begin to soar to heights I could not purchase anything at, hardly. If they saw a specimen of topaz on the Arkenstone’s website at $2000 (that I might have sold him!), they wanted $2500 for the same or worse level material on my next trip, and they did not understand about damage and dings so everything was highly-priced with little chance to buy more. So, the easier times were gone by 2008 or so. 

I had had to forgo rubies during the sanctions at the time from 2008 until recently, but spinel and other minerals were still allowed. They just were not commonly available. In 2016 the sanctions were lifted so rubies again were allowed but it seems that not many good crystals are being recovered and without people like me on the ground there to pay cash for them, they mostly go to the cutters for quick and easy money. There is little incentive in the region to preserve crystals, without a ready and available local buyer. I have gone on 37 trips into Burma and have many friends there still. The best travel and times for me were during the past ten years, even though not many specimens came as a result (some phenakites, some odds and ends new finds, the painite discovery). I’ve been referred to as The Godfather of Crystals for Mogok stone dealers, and they treated me with much respect in the good times. Thinking about what was destroyed to cut inferior gemstones is beyond sad, but I am happy my collection preserved what I could of what was found in what are surely the glory years of minerals there. Now the miners know much more, and of course, they look at the internet often, so hopefully new finds will start to trickle out again, and more will be preserved outside of the Mogok area itself, where there are surely many other crystal deposits waiting to be found.

Think “Multi-Purpose” Specimens - Jim Houran

Feb 23, 2021

By James (Jim) Houran

People with the so-called “collector gene” often indulge multiple interests and collections, either at once or over time. For instance, there are some mineral connoisseurs who likewise build important collections of art, old bottles, vintage mining equipment, Indian artifacts, pottery, or other historic or aesthetic items. Now, think about a private or museum mineral collection you really admire — for me, this includes vintage collections such as the American Museum of Natural History, Chicago’s Field Museum, and the Smithsonian, as well as modern collectors who exhibit broadly to the community such as Carolyn Manchester, Bill Larson, Gail and Jim Spann, and Salim Edde (MIM Museum) — and most likely that collection can be divided into several sub-sets or mini-collections, either by species, crystal class, locality, or other meaningful criteria. This is part of the allure of gem and mineral collecting… individual specimens and entire collections typically have more than one story to tell.

Heliodor from New England Mining Company Quarry, Upper Merryall, New Milford, Litchfield County, Connecticut
4.14 ct; 12.74 mm x 8.84 mm

On this point, dealers and auction houses frequently use the term “crossover collectible” to describe an item with a diverse character that makes it appealing to multiple groups of collectors. Pieces with strong crossover appeal often garner greater interest and price, since they are desired by multiple interest groups. For example, antique Coca-Cola items bring high dollars because they are simultaneously in demand by collectors of (a) Coca-Cola memorabilia, (b) Americana, (c) antiques, and (d) classic advertising material. Similarly, a top-quality crystal of New Jersey zincite with a handwritten label from a historic collection or dealer would be a “Holy Grail” target for collectors seeking either East Coast classics, rare minerals, gem crystals, material from the Franklin locality, or specimens with special provenance.

However, the more common notion of “crossover” in the auction-world is less compelling to me than the idea of “multi-purpose” specimens and collections That is, pieces or assemblies that are important and hence desirable because they perform different functions. This suggestion might sound eccentric, but in a very real sense, gem and mineral specimens can provide key services for collectors and the general public. Stated more poetically, to my way of thinking they are actors in four basic types of scripted productions:

  • Conservation: Some species (or varieties) are rare in nature or at certain localities. For this reason alone, fine examples should be preserved for posterity as historical and geological artifacts.

  • Research-documentation: Fine specimens are immensely useful for research purposes, as they show the pinnacle of development for either a given species (or variety) or that species at a particular location. These pieces are geological record keepers.

  • Education-display: Following the point above, some specimens have unusually fine features that serve as “textbook” examples of crystal classes, colors, or other key features. Accordingly, these well-developed qualities exude a sense of “showmanship” and make effective display items for general education and display projects.

  • Aesthetics-adornment: Frankly, the allure of most specimens is the psychological experience they give people. Some even refer to it as an “energy,” albeit not the “crystal healing” type. Gems and minerals are visually and intellectually attractive products of nature. Their allure invites us to learn more about them, so the enjoyment associated with pure aesthetics can be considered the “gateway drug” to more academic purchases, which involves the broader principles of connoisseurship as discussed by many authors (e.g., Currier, 2008, 2009a, 2009b; Halpern, 2005; Houran & Bleess, 2014; Smale, 2006; Thompson, 2007; Wilson, 1990).

Quartz var. Chalcedony ("Blue Baxter" ) from Cady Mountains, Mojave Desert, near Barstow, San Bernardino County, California
5.90 ct; 12.11 mm

My approach both to collecting and exhibiting has generally focused on specimens that speak to most, if not all, of these four “multi-purpose” elements. Admittedly, it takes discernment and discipline to adhere to these criteria with every acquisition or when selecting specimens to exhibit. This means that collectors can still be flexible without requiring these parameters for every acquisition. That said, faithfully putting into practice this “multi-purpose” outlook has added new intellectual and emotional dimensions to my personal experience and evaluation of gem and mineral specimens.

Perhaps this approach will also make sense to readers as a way to inform or guide their collection goals. Collectors certainly pursue different things for different reasons, and our very motivations for collecting in the first place vary by individual. But my belief is that ultimately all collectors are drawn to specific specimens for the stories they tell — and all exhibitors are enthusiastic to share those stories with others. Put simply, for me the most desirable specimens are those that are talented actors who can play more than one part and star in more than one story. “Multi-purpose” equals “multi-engaging.”

Fluorite from the Walworth Quarry, Walworth, Wayne County, New York
16.36 ct; 16.63 mm



References

Currier, R. (2008). About mineral collecting: Part 1 of 5. Mineralogical Record, 39, 305-313.

Currier, R. (2009a). About mineral collecting: Part 3 of 5. Mineralogical Record, 40, 49-59.

Currier, R. (2009b). About mineral collecting: Part 5 of 5. Mineralogical Record, 40, 193-202.

Halpern, J. (2005). Criteria for selecting crystallized mineral specimens for a display collection. Mineralogical Record, 36, 195-198.

Houran, J., & Bleess, J. (2014). Thumbnail collecting: One philosophy of collecting. Lapis, 39, 12-28. [see also: https://www.irocks.com/little-wonders-connoisseur-thumbnails-in-the-contemporary-collector-market]

Smale, S. (2006). The Smale Collection: Beauty in Natural Crystals. Lithographie, LLC: Denver.

Thompson, W. (2007) Ikons: Classic and Contemporary Masterpieces. Supplement to the Mineralogical Record. Tucson, AZ: Mineralogical Record.

Wilson, W. E. (1990). Connoisseurship in minerals. Mineralogical Record, 21, 7-12.

We'd like to extend a special thanks to friend and fellow mineral enthusiast, Jim Houran, for authoring the reprinting of this article.

“Dr. Jim” Houran, Ph.D., Managing Director of AETHOS Consulting Group, is a 25-year veteran in applied psychological research and a published expert on peak performance, online testing and interpersonal and organizational compatibility. He has authored over 150 articles, and his award-winning work has been profiled by a myriad of media outlets and programs including the Discovery Channel, A&E, BBC, National Geographic, NBC’s Today Show, USA Today, New Scientist, Psychology Today and Forbes.com. He serves as adjunct faculty at the Laboratory for Statistics and Computation, ISLA – Instituto Politécnico de Gestão e Tecnologia (Lisbon, Portugal), an editorial board member for the APA peer-reviewed journal, Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research and Practice, and as an editorial board member for the peer-reviewed journal, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly.

“Many people over the years have told me that I’m best described as an unconventional researcher and practitioner who’s clearly passionate about bringing real-world psychology to the everyday personal and professional lives of clients. This is possible because of my eclectic and generalist background in the social sciences, which gives me a comprehensive perspective about imagination, cognition, personality and behavior. For me, nothing compares to the satisfaction of working on projects in which the latest psychological theories help to produce unprecedented awareness and positive outcomes. The fluid and demanding industry of hospitality is ultimately built on people and relationships. Psychology has so much to say about the drivers of professional development, team dynamics, organizational performance and the guest experience. I’m in my element when consulting with leaders and their teams on these strategic issues. But psychology doesn’t define my entire identity; I stay personally grounded through my family and enjoying the natural sciences, history, anthropology and the arts. It’s fun and rewarding being unconventional!”

https://www.aethoscg.com/directors_a/jim-houran/

In Memoriam: Mark Neil Feinglos (1948–2020)

Sep 4, 2020

Adapted with permission from Rocks & Minerals, volume 95, September/October 2020 for publication on iRocks.com.

Mark Feinglos and Susan Feinglos
Mark with his wife, Susan Totten Feinglos.

Mark Neil Feinglos, MD, CM, passed away unexpectedly on 14 March 2020 (at age seventy-two). He died in the home he loved in Durham, North Carolina, where he had lived for more than forty years. Mark Feinglos was born on 23 February 1948, in Syracuse, New York, the only child of Bertha and Clarence Feinglos. When Mark decided to attend medical school at McGill University in Montreal, his mother proudly began referring to him as “My son, the doctor,” and she would only ask for him that way on the phone ever again: “Is my son, the doctor, there?” Ever a man of many interests, Mark had one, central lifelong passion as he went through school and career: mineral collecting. In fact, most people in the mineral community were not familiar with Mark’s lifelong work in medicine and probably assumed the “Dr.” in his title was actually a doctorate in geology.

Mark began collecting minerals at the age of five when his aunt bought him a boxed set of minerals as a gift. This quickly became his favorite toy, and his mother supported his budding passion, patiently taking him to mineral stores and shows in nearby cities throughout his early years. Mark’s passion for mineralogy grew over the course of his life and saw him building one of the most scientifically important private mineral collections in the world. His undergraduate degree, also from McGill, was in geology.

At McGill, Mark met his first wife and ultimately the mother of his two children, Sue Goldman Feinglos. Mark and Sue moved to Durham in 1972 when Mark began his residency at Duke University Medical Center. He never left Durham or Duke after that— something highly atypical for a physician. He rose to become Chief of Duke’s Division of Endocrinology for more than a decade, carefully balancing immense responsibility to the hospital and devotion to his family.

Mark was an incredibly committed husband and father, taking on the role of two parents to his young children when Sue was diagnosed with brain cancer in 1994. Sue had become the highly regarded Director of the Duke Medical Center Library after a long career there. She fought the effects of cancer valiantly for eight years, but she could not have done so without her husband’s love, support, and coordination of her care across years of tests and bad news—which he always met with dedication and hope. From Sue’s diagnosis to her passing in 2002, Mark was there for her. In his eulogy for his wife, Mark stood with his children at his side and said that instead of ever suggesting that their mother had lost her battle with cancer, to remember instead that she “retired undefeated.” Mark also persisted through these incredibly challenging times, and he was there for his children every step of the way. He never missed a parent-teacher conference, a school play, or a competition. The family ate dinner together around the kitchen table every night, with Mark’s delicious cooking sustaining everyone with love and support. Mark was an amazing father, always generous with his time and a word of advice, always stepping out of meetings to take a call from either of his children, and always bursting with pride to share his children’s accomplishments with anyone who would listen.

Mark liked to say that he was very lucky to fall in love twice when some people don’t even get lucky once, and that he, apparently, only married “Susans.” He first met Susan Totten at Duke Hospital in 2007 when she was working there as a Registered Dietitian Nutritionist in endocrinology. They enjoyed ten years of marriage together. In 2008, Mark and Susan published an editorial together on diabetes research in the Archives of Internal Medicine. It is safe to say that Mark’s contributions to the field of endocrinology have enabled people with diabetes to live better lives all over the world.

Mark Feinglos with his children, Daniel and Rebecca.
Mark with son, Daniel Feinglos, and daughter, Rebecca Feinglos Planchard.

Mark was not yet ready to retire and remained diligent in his robust career, pursuing many dozens of grants and studies, writing publications and articles, and giving talks—all far too many to recount here.

But Mark would often say that his research in the medical field would not be remembered fifty years from now— the science evolves so quickly that today’s discoveries will be supplanted by tomorrow’s innovations. Instead, Mark said he would be remembered for his contributions to the field of mineralogy.

Over the years, Mark became an expert across all aspects of minerals, eventually focusing on building his own collection as a repository of diverse and historical mineralogy. He loved German minerals, complex chemistry, and Tsumeb. He loved bornites (nobody understood why) and hated borates. He loved historic labels for the stories they told of mineralogy over time, not just to track ownership of a specimen. Mark’s collection has been a teaching tool for many people through the years, and his family is sure that it will continue to be long after he is gone.

Chalcophyllite
Chalcophyllite, Wheal Gorland, Cornwall, England. 4.2 cm.
Ex. Dr. Mark Feinglos Collection

At first look, his collection might seem random, but it was not. Instead, it was more than twelve thousand specimens—groups of minerals that, when arranged together, could illuminate and educate. To visit Mark, see his collection, and talk about it with him was literally to receive an education. In fact, Mark had a long-running dialogue with the late Kay Robertson in which they helped each other complete and build their German suites. He liked to joke that the only time somebody had bested him on a trade was when Kay came to visit and traded him out of the best twinned copper from Germany, a little jewel he never forgot. (When Kay sold her collection thirty years later, the specimen came back to him, and she commented that Mark was her only worthy trading adversary in the United States.)

Mark also assembled a robust suite of type minerals, arranged in a single wooden cabinet to the side of the others for protection and safekeeping. In building this suite, he had a friendly competition with his best friend, the late Bill Pinch, to acquire rare study pieces. But often they’d end up trimming the pieces in half to share with the other. These are probably the largest collections of type specimens in private hands, and the two of them engaged in amiable competition for decades, hoping the collections would both end up together in the same museum someday.

In the 1990s Mark was the mentor to a group of young dealers in the early world of internet mineral dealing. By the late 1990s he was basically “godfather” to a small group of dealers selling rare species online, which he actively encouraged to broaden interest in the wider world of minerals and collecting. Some of those early internet dealers included Rob Lavinsky of Arkenstone, Jordi Fabre of Fabre Minerals, Jasun McAvoy of Mineralman, and the late John Veevaert of Trinity Minerals, all of whom visited frequently to look and learn in person. Mark was absolutely open with his knowledge and his heart, sharing minerals and his collection with anybody who enjoyed them regardless of stature and age. He served as an online referee for all kinds of species and research questions in the era before Mindat really became established.

Mark was absolutely open with his knowledge and his heart, sharing minerals and his collection with anybody who enjoyed them.

Mark identified many new minerals, as he was often sent specimens that could not be identified. He and Bill Pinch would surely have been named the world champions of sight-identification of minerals. Working within Duke’s mineral collection (they lacked a curator, and this crazy doctor from the Medical Center was willing to step in and curate, organize, and catalog in his spare time), Mark discovered something that looked like a new mineral. He worked to name it dukeite in honor of the university and the Duke family. It was the first U.S. university to have a mineral named for it. In 1997, Mark was honored to have the mineral feinglosite named for him after he was the first to notice the unfamiliar specimen in the Natural History Museum, London.

Feinglosite
Feinglosite, Tsumeb, Namibia. 2.0 cm.

Mark spent his life continuing in the historic tradition of mineralogy, discovering for the sake of discovery, and living out his passion for science. He was honored to be an active contributor of the RRUFF Project at the University of Arizona. Mark won the William Pinch Medal in 2003, its second recipient after its namesake, Bill Pinch. The Pinch Medal is awarded every other year to recognize major and sustained contributions to the advancement of mineralogy.

Mark Feinglos lived a full life with people he loved and people who loved him. He was a true intellectual, kindhearted, a collector, and quick with a keen sense of humor. He will be missed every day. Mark is survived by his wife, Susan Totten; his children, Daniel Feinglos and Rebecca Feinglos Planchard; his son-in-law, Sean Planchard; his sister- in-law, Laverne Vance; his brotherin- law, Jeff Vance; his nephew, Stephen Vance; and his mothers-in-law, Beryl Goldman and Lorine Totten.

Rebecca Feinglos Planchard
Rebecca Feinglos Planchard is the daughter of Mark Feinglos.

Robert Lavinsky
Dr. Robert Lavinsky, a lifelong mineral collector, is the owner of The Arkenstone.

Why Competition? Two Perspectives

Aug 16, 2020

Desautels, Bideaux, Romero TGMS Trophies
Desautels, Bideaux, Romero Trophies

Adapted with permission from the Mineralogical Record, volume 51, July–August, 2020, for publication on iRocks.com.

Les Presmyk
610 South Bay Drive
Gilbert, Arizona 85233

Marc Countiss
1427 Fall Wood Drive
Sugar Land, Texas 77479

The Tucson Gem and Mineral Show is a hotbed of mineral-related activity, camaraderie, wheeling, and dealing, discussions, arguments, and general wonderment. One of the most exciting aspects is the competitive displays. Any collector can enter minerals in competition and doing so will provide a whole new and gratifying show experience—win or lose! The authors present here some thoughts, observations, background, and experiences designed to encourage more competition at shows.

Perhaps a better question is why not? Competition is something we live with every day in school, in our jobs, our sports, and our elections. Almost everything we do or are involved with includes some form of competition. So why should our mineral hobby be any different? Some collectors want to have the best thumbnail or miniature collection or find the best pocket of some mineral—or at least the best pocket they ever found through self-collecting.

Competitive mineral exhibits have been a part of mineral shows since their very beginnings. When the Tucson Gem and Mineral Show® began in 1954, the founders encouraged competitive as well as non-competitive displays. Today those displays are more fascinating and interesting than ever.

LES PRESMYK’S PERSPECTIVE

The very first time I exhibited, at the age of 11, it was to compete at the Arizona 4-H Fair with a wooden box containing 24 thumbnails. Then it was on to the Arizona State Fair, which at the time represented the largest and best mineral competition in Arizona. There was actual prize money, and other young exhibitors like Wayne Thompson, as well as numerous adult collectors including Bob Jones, Harry Roberson, Tom McKee, and Edna Andregg, just to name a few, enjoyed competing for trophies and award money. I attended my first AFMS national show when I was 17 and was fortunate enough to win the Junior Trophy. For me, competing has become second nature. It has always been about seeing how an exhibit was improving, how the judging was being done at other shows, and, of course, it was about winning if possible.

Back when minerals were not as valuable in dollar terms as they are today, people seemed more willing to compete. There is always a risk in packing and transporting specimens; when specimens did not carry high values, collectors were more willing to travel to shows and display their collections. Today, if an elite collector is putting in a case of 25 minerals, some with a price range of $25,000 to $250,000, this is a significant amount of money to place at risk. But the enjoyment of showing their collection to thousands of show-goers and friends, comparing their minerals with those of other collectors, and receiving authoritative feedback from a team of highly knowledgeable judges, makes it all worthwhile.

Desautels, Lidstrom, Bideaux, and Romero Trophies along with various ribbon awards for TGMS
Awards given out by the Tucson Show.

There are two basic types of competition, the American Federation of Mineral Societies (one national show per year and seven regional federation shows) and the Tucson Gem and Mineral Show®. The AFMS Competitive Exhibitor’s Handbook contains hundreds of categories including lapidary and jewelry, fossils, minerals, micromounts, and educational. It used to be that all miniature size cases competed against one another for a single national trophy, so a display of specialized miniatures had to score more points than a case of worldwide miniatures of 25 different species for the same trophy. It could be rather discouraging to put in a fantastic case of calcites, for example, when you knew you could be competing against azurites, golds, and 23 or so other varied species from localities worldwide. Now, there are trophies available in many different categories, and in the case of minerals, there are general classes, like worldwide miniatures or thumbnails, and trophies for the restricted classes for various sizes.

In order to compete for a national trophy, an exhibitor must first receive at least 90 points out of 100 at a regional show to qualify for national competition. This could include a first-place ribbon and maybe even a regional trophy but not necessarily. I have seen thumbnail competitions where the fourth-place exhibit still received 91 points so all four became qualified to enter the national trophy competition.

At the Tucson Show®, we allow exhibitors to compete in any of the myriad of categories listed within the AFMS exhibitor’s handbook, but the 15 or so categories in the Tucson Show® handbook have generally met the needs of Tucson competitors. At Tucson, there are two levels for Junior exhibitors and three levels for adult competition. For Juniors, there is the regular Junior level which is the entry-level. Once a Junior exhibitor has either won two blue ribbons in a category or taken the Best Junior trophy, they must thereafter enter in a different category or move up to the Junior- Master level. This was instituted to allow the Junior-age exhibitors to continue competing against other Juniors rather than being required to compete in the adult categories. As an adult (18 years or older) a person can start in the Novice division and move up to Advanced and finally to Master level. However, there are no restrictions about entering directly in Masters if that is your quality and comfort level.

Competition at the Tucson Gem and Mineral Show stresses several aspects: showmanship, accuracy of labeling and rarity are all important, but the quality of the specimens is paramount. The goal is to make the judging as fair and unbiased as possible. The Tucson Show® is very interested in educating exhibitors about what is good in their exhibit and what steps they can take to improve their display. All judging teams are encouraged to provide feedback to each exhibitor regarding labels, showmanship, and especially the quality of their specimens.

The real difference between AFMS and the Tucson Show® is in the judging. The AFMS uses qualified judges who work in teams of two, evaluating the entire case including labels, showmanship, rarity and quality. They judge during the open hours of the show. So, while the judges stand (or sit) in front of a case, they know they cannot speak too loudly for fear of someone hearing their comments, nor do they have permission to ask another judge or judging team about a particular specimen, especially in thumbnail cases.

At Tucson, judging teams are used but in a very different way. There is one team judging rarity in all of the cases, one team for showmanship, and one team for labels. This provides consistency across all of the exhibits, regardless of exhibitor level. Then there are three teams, each consisting of a judge and a clerk, who independently judge the quality of every specimen. The judging takes place after the show is closed so conversations can take place freely regarding any questions the judges may have. The quality of each specimen is judged using a scale of 1 to 10. The clerk (who is either a quality judge-in-training or a quality judge) records the score so the quality judge does not see how the other judge or judges have scored the specimens. However, and especially with thumbnails, there are sometimes species not every judge may know. If the quality team cannot figure out how good something is, they are encouraged to ask the other quality judges or the judging chairman.

When it comes to the Best of Species competition and the other special trophies like the Bideaux (best Arizona specimen), the Lidstrom (best single specimen in a competitive exhibit) and the Desautels (best case entered for this trophy, recognizing “the best case of rocks in the show”), it is the three quality judges who join together to form the team who determines those winners. No scores are given, and any previous scoring of a case entered in competition for a special trophy is not known or used. This team now examines each specimen and each case to determine the winners. The Denver Show, on the other hand, awards several special trophies and under their system all of their judges award scores for all of the entries. Both systems work well because when it comes down to it, the goal is to provide as fair and unbiased/impartial judging as possible.

TGMS First Place Thumbnails in the Junior Division for 2019: Wyatt Busby
First Place Thumbnails in the Junior Division, 2019; Wyatt Busby. Christi Cramer photo.

Now let’s talk about the human factor in all of this. Like it or not, judges aren’t perfect; they are just human beings. For the Tucson Show, I always do my best to select knowledgeable mineral collectors, which have included dealers and museum curators, as judges. I also try to select judges who have competed in the past. Although dealers are many times the most knowledgeable about the availability of specimens, being a judge can put them in the awkward position of having to judge other dealers’ minerals (owned by the collectors they have sold to). And yet we still occasionally have dealers who are willing to share their expertise as judges. All potential quality judges spend at least their first year as a clerk. Each quality judge knows they are also training future judges. In addition, I provide each judging team with written guidelines about judging and a quality scale to help provide as much consistency as possible.

For the exhibitor, sometimes, it’s just bad luck. For example, a number of years ago a thumbnail collector brought an exhibit that included a large but somewhat etched cumengeite. For a thumbnail it was not the best one I had seen but it was at least a 9.5. However, the judges gave it around a 9 or 9.25 for two reasons. One was because of the pitting and the other was because the Sorbonne had brought all three of their fabulous cumengeites to exhibit. Now, all of them were small to medium size miniatures but the museum specimens stole the thunder from the smaller specimen in the competitive thumbnail case.

Another fault of human nature appears the first time a judge sees a great specimen; the initial shock value may generate a 9.75 or 10-point score. The next year the same exhibit shows up, even though this is still the best specimen anyone has seen (and not because they just found a quarry full of them in India) the piece may score only 9.5. And the third year it may drop even further. This depreciation of impact value is not mere conjecture; a top thumbnail collector and competitor kept track every year for the three years he competed with his thumbnail exhibit at Tucson and documented the declining scores.

There are two ways we try to minimize this effect. One is to rotate the quality judges so that every year there is at least one judge who did not judge the previous year. And, the fact that there are three quality judging teams is paramount. No matter how much the three judges may differ on a particular specimen, the total quality scores on any particular case are nearly always within just a couple of percentage points of each other.

The second mitigating factor we use is the point at which the first, second and third-place ribbons are awarded. In AFMS competition you must achieve at least 90 points to win a first-place ribbon. At Tucson, in the Masters class, the threshold is 85 points, Advanced is 75 points and it drops as low as 60 points for a Junior exhibitor. Not that the standards are lower in Tucson; just the opposite. In fact, one collector noted that the scores he was awarded by AFMS were often 10 points higher than he received from TGMS judges. In Tucson we place greater emphasis on specimen quality. Another example is labeling. In AFMS, labeling is worth 10 points and you lose 2 points for every labeling error; at Tucson it is 1⁄2 point. In the Masters class, there are only 6 points for labeling and in all of the other exhibitor categories it is 10 points. While accuracy in labeling is certainly important, it should never overshadow the quality of the specimens.

There is no question that the willingness to compete at all levels has diminished in recent times. Thirty-five years ago, at the Tucson Show® there were around 40 competitive exhibits, but for the past 15 or 20 years, that average has been closer to 20. Denver and Federation competition has seen the same declining trend. Certainly, the value of specimens may be a deterrent. As mentioned above, we all know that when you handle, pack and transport your specimens there is a risk of breaking something. In 2017, we (Les) moved 660 specimens from Gilbert, Arizona to Springfield, Massachusetts to fill 52 display cases at the East Coast Gem & Mineral Show. Not a single specimen was harmed. However, during the process of moving specimens around at home while preparing the cases, three specimens were slightly damaged.

Year after year, collectors are more than willing to put in non-competitive displays at the Tucson Show® but have no desire to compete. And considering that 1001 displays are brought to the Tucson Show® each year, of which around 20 are competitive displays, it is clear that many collectors are still willing to display their collections. So why should a person compete?

TGMS Desautels and Lidstrom Award winner for 2019: Irv Brown
Desautels and Lidstrom Award winner for 2019; Irv Brown. Christi Cramer photo.

The level of competition and the judges at the Tucson Show® are the best in the country. As has been described by more than one collector, the Tucson Show® is an ever-changing, temporary four-day world mineral museum exhibit. There are exhibitors who compete at Tucson who do not compete anywhere else because of the prestige of the show and the level of competition. There is a large pool of knowledgeable and willing mineral collectors to do the judging. So, it is like the World Championships every year, with the expectation that one or more of the top collectors will bring an exhibit to vie for the Best of Show in Masters as well as for the special trophies in the Desautels, the Lidstrom, the Bideaux and Best of Theme categories. Over the history of the Tucson competition and its special trophies, most of the winners of these awards have gone to everyday collectors who bring their best specimens or have a really great theme specimen or Arizona piece that takes home a trophy. Like the Lottery, you can’t win if you don’t enter.

I have been the Competitive Exhibits and Judging chairman at the Tucson Show® for the past 34 years and started judging in 1979. During that time, there have been three generations of Junior exhibitors I have helped mentor until they graduated from high school and went off to college. They came back every year, with better specimens and better showmanship while certainly correcting their labeling mistakes, to win the blue ribbon and ultimately a trophy. One of the other incentives has been provided through the generous assistance of Dr. Rob Lavinsky of The Arkenstone. He has given $100 to each Junior exhibitor just for exhibiting and then another $200 for the second-highest score and another $400 for the highest scoring junior age exhibitor for the past 10 years. After competing for over a decade, one of these young exhibitors, Lauren Megaw, won the Desautels at the age of 19! The Flagg Mineral Foundation and the Mineralogical Society of Arizona have supported the Phoenix area Junior collectors as well and encouraged them to compete in Tucson.

Competitive exhibiting is something every collector can do, regardless of their budget. Gretchen Luepke-Bynum, who exhibited competitively for decades, was such a collector. She had a limited budget coupled with a boundless enthusiasm for exhibiting and competing. She collected (1) world-wide thumbnails, (2) miniatures and (3) small cabinet-size specimens. So, every third year she would enter one of the three size categories, each time showing some improvement in her displays. She started as a college student in the Novice category and worked her way up with each of her collections. When she finally won her first Novice trophy it was a very proud moment for her. And it was another great moment when she won the Advanced level trophy. She was a fixture in the competition and the only show she missed was when she was recovering from knee or hip replacement surgery. She had far more white and red ribbons than blue ones, but I always admired her willingness to put her collection and herself out there.

TUCSON’S SPECIAL TROPHIES

Best of Species/Theme

The original idea for this competition came from an editorial written by John White in his early days as editor of the Mineralogical Record. The premise was to select a particular species that would be featured at various shows throughout the country and then bring the winners from each show to one show and have a run-off competition for the ultimate winners. The Tucson Show® Committee adopted this idea almost immediately, initially choosing minerals well represented in Arizona. The first competition was in 1972, the mineral selected was wulfenite, and this was before show posters and show themes were instituted. The next few years the favored topics included azurite, malachite, pyrite, and barite. The first deviation came when rhodochrosite was selected, a mineral that has few localities in Arizona, none of which are noteworthy. In addition to selecting a single species for competition, the Tucson Show® Committee has also selected significant locality areas such as Western Europe, Mexico, Australia, and even specific states like Arizona and California, to name just a few.

The Denver Gem & Mineral Show initiated its Best of Species/ Theme competition in 1992. As far as I know, these are the only two shows that have adopted this concept. Once posters began to be produced by the two shows, the poster mineral has coincided with the best of species/theme.

TGMS Desautels Award winner for 2018: Jeff Kremer
Desautels Award winner for 2018; Jeff Kremer. Wendell Wilson photo.

McDole/Desautels Trophy

The McDole Trophy was initiated in 1975 by John Patrick and Al McGuinness to honor the memory of Ed McDole, a hardrock miner turned mineral collector, who collected a number of fine pockets throughout the West and was a fixture at the Tucson Show®. The only criterion for judging was that “the best case of rocks” would be selected, no points given for labeling, and no consideration of showmanship—just the minerals themselves.

Every year, the judging team consisted of John Patrick, Al McGuinness and one of the quality judges from the Tucson Show’s competition judging team. Then the trophy was presented by John and Al during the Saturday night program. This was accompanied by the requirement that the winner knock back a shot of Old Bounders rum from a bottle supposedly owned by Ed McDole himself (although Ed McDole did not drink). After Al passed away in 1995 the McDole trophy was retired at John Patrick’s request and the Show Committee initiated the Desautels Trophy in its place, honoring former Smithsonian curator and mineral connoisseur Paul E. Desautels, who had died in 1991. The award still recognizes the best case of minerals in the show entered in this competition.

Lidstrom Trophy

Walt Lidstrom was a dealer in the show who started out as an agate collector and dealer. He quickly became one of the premier mineral dealers at the Tucson Show® and was always generous with his encouragement of young collectors, including me.

With his passing, his family funded a trophy to be awarded to the best single specimen, selected for consideration by an exhibitor, contained within a competitive exhibit. The specimen being selected by the exhibitor has always been the most interesting part of this competition. There are numerous examples of the exhibitor (including me) selecting the wrong specimen, or at least not the specimen the judges would have awarded the trophy to had the collector chosen that piece.

Bideaux Trophy

Richard A. Bideaux was a lifetime Arizona mineral collector and mineralogist who was also a computer expert. Upon his passing in 2004, The Tucson Show® committee decided to honor his memory with a competition and trophy for the best Arizona specimen entered for consideration.

MARC COUNTISS’S PERSPECTIVE

I (Marc) have collected minerals for 40 years but consider myself to have been a serious collector since 2001. My wife Janis joined me in the hobby after the specimens that I brought home finally infected her with the collecting bug. The best way to define “serious” for us is being willing to spend an amount which causes some very careful internal debate before buying. Not surprisingly, this amount has increased over time as our tastes have evolved and mineral prices have risen. But it also means buying pieces that would, in the opinion of most experienced collectors, rank high for overall quality and appeal. Once we became serious, we continued to view it as a hobby and not as an investment, even though it captured a considerable portion of our discretionary funds. But we strove to acquire the very finest that we could afford. The thought was that someday we would divest the collection and we wanted to have a chance of recouping at least some of the cost. This is a pretty common theme among devoted collectors.

TGMS Desautels Award winner for 2017: Gary and Rosemary White
Desautels Award winner for 2017; Gary and Rosemary White. Wendell Wilson photo.

We followed the traditional path of going to Tucson and Denver regularly, as well as various other shows. Early on in the Tucson adventure, I and my collector friends would sift through every room, tent and parking lot we could find. There was far more trash than treasure to be seen, but it was exciting nonetheless, and educational. Janis and I also went to museums and saw as many private collections as possible. This gave us a very good sense of what constituted an exceptional specimen in most collectors’ minds and helped us focus on what appealed to us.

The Houston Area Mineral Society (HAMS) was inaugurated in 2004 to foster a growing group of like-minded collectors in our area. This group also accelerated our education regarding fine minerals and facilitated the exchange of ideas and information on collecting.

Mineral collecting has been a captivating and exciting adventure for us. We are always eager to see what new things the dealer community has brought to each show. We enjoy visiting with the many friends we have made over the years and hearing about the new treasures they have found. Minerals hold a fascination that is difficult to express, but Rock Currier did a fine job describing it in his series of Mineralogical Record essays entitled “About Mineral Collecting.” In his treatise he referred to one’s mineral collection as their “precious children.” This seems to effectively convey the passion serious collectors have about their specimens. So how did this lead to competing?

Tucson hosts what is widely regarded as the largest and most influential conglomeration of mineral shows on the planet—dubbed by the City Fathers as the “Tucson Gem, Mineral and Fossil Showcase.” The Tucson Gem and Mineral Show (TGMS), also called just the “Tucson Show” or the “Main Show,” is an entity separate from, but related to, the Tucson Gem and Mineral Society (also called the TGMS) that originated it, and now has its own board of directors. The Main Show is the culmination of this multi-week, multi-show extravaganza each year. The TGMS mineral competition is also seen as the most prestigious event of its kind. Past winners comprise a Who’s Who of modern mineral collecting history. The names are known throughout the hobby, and to be listed among that group is a high honor indeed.

Over time we began to wonder how our collection would rank with the best. How would we fare against Gail and Jim Spann, Barry Kitt, Gene and Roz Meieran or any of the long list of notables who have competed and won? For us to end up on top when compared to those collections seemed unlikely. Nonetheless, we began to believe that we could be competitive at a high level and we became curious about how we would fare in an exclusive contest.

HAMS member Brent Lockhart suggested several years ago that we consider competing at the TGMS Main Show in Tucson. At first, we disregarded his suggestion because we did not think our collection was ready for competition, but he thought we had a chance. Brent won the Lidstrom trophy the first year he competed in 2014, for his wonderful Elura mine mimetite. He persevered to win the Desautels Award in 2016. Brent’s experience gave us confidence that his opinion should be trusted, and that encouragement would ultimately convince us that we should give it a try.

We finally decided to put our collection in competition for the first time in 2017. The trail had been blazed by Brent, along with other HAMS members, all of whom had some level of success in the TGMS competition. Mineral collecting has been such an integral part of our lives over the last 18 years that it felt like competing would be the next logical step. Collecting has been the focus of much of our travels and social events. So many friends have been made through our connection with this hobby. So much of our time and interest has been tied to minerals. It was not so much about winning an award as it was about all of those things. But win or not, we wanted to have the experience of competing in the mineralogical Mecca of Tucson, to complete our collecting legacy.

Deciding to compete is a major step forward, but then what? For most people the next step is a bit unclear. How do you enter? What are the various competitive categories? What exactly are the rules and where can they be found? Which of our pieces should be included in an exhibit? Most collectors are aware of the TGMS competition but largely unacquainted with the details. There is a set of Uniform Rules of Competition published by the American Federation of Mineralogical Societies (AFMS) that govern min- eral competitions at Federation shows. It is a hefty volume but the basic rules and definitions are covered in the first 12 pages. After that, the remaining 70 or so pages are devoted to specifics of the different divisions of competition (minerals, lapidary, fossils etc.). There is a class for everything “mineral” in this set of competition rules.

TGMS Desautels and Lidstrom Award winner for 2015: Pinnacle Collection.
Desautels and Lidstrom Award winner for 2015; Pinnacle Collection. Christi Cramer photo.

But TGMS has a unique set of rules described in its Competitive Exhibitor Handbook governing the TGMS competition in Tucson. The handbook describes the various exhibitor groups, competitive divisions and assorted awards. It also discusses classes for mineral exhibits and the criteria used in judging and scoring. Within the regular exhibitor groups (Junior through Master), TGMS rules allow for a minimum of 20 specimens of the mixed size and type division. This is one of the most common divisions of competition in Tucson. Competition is also common in the categories for miniature-size and toenail-size specimens (the “toenail” size category was initiated at the Tucson Show® as the intermediate size between thumbnails and miniatures), also with a minimum of 20 specimens required. The thumbnail class calls for at least 30 specimens for qualification. The special trophies (Desautels, Lidstrom etc.) each have their own separate set of requirements. A copy of the handbook can be requested from TGMS for further details.

Soliciting opinions from other collectors who have competed in Tucson is advisable, as there are some considerations that may not be apparent to the uninitiated. The general tendency for a collector is to select specimens for competition based on value rather than quality. Not that high-value pieces won’t score well, but in the regular exhibitor groups, quality is 75% of the score (85% at the Master or highest level) and dollar value is not necessarily a consideration. We have received very high scores on pieces that were not expensive. “Trophy rocks” can certainly provide an edge in the special award categories such as the Desautels or the Lidstrom where so-called “killer rocks” can move the needle. But to win in the regular competition divisions, all of the well-known quality criteria of form, color, luster, lack of damage etc. are most important. These are what the Tucson quality judges are looking for.

The regular competition groups are determined by a composite point score while the Desautels, Lidstrom and Bideaux Memorial Trophies are based on the majority opinion of the judges. So, it is not uncommon for a competitor to win Best of Show (the highest award at the Masters level of regular competition) but still fail to win the Desautels Trophy. Sometimes this is due to a competitor only entering for the Desautels and Lidstrom awards while not entering the regular competition.

Looking at our collection with a very critical eye, we immediately see all the imperfections. We are inclined to compare our pieces to things we have seen in the most elite museums and private collections in existence and feel inadequate. Competing against that level of quality may bring disappointment. But the reality is that museums do not compete, and the most elite collectors do not compete very often, if ever. However, Tucson annually attracts a group of fine collections for display so it benefits you to bring your best. It is typical to select personal favorites, but getting outside opinions on what pieces to include in a competitive exhibit can help to be objective. Ask four or five collector friends whose knowledge and judgment are trusted to help select a group of specimens that are the top tier.

Once the decision is made on the pieces to be included, the next step is to consider how to display them. Building a set of risers and case liners to make the exhibit look professional and appealing is worth the effort. Having been co-architect of past HAMS exhibits at the Tucson Show has helped me to prepare the proper display components. TGMS supplies very accurate dimensions of their exhibit cases, so a set of risers and liners can be constructed that will simply slide right into the case. Be mindful that a portion of the score is dependent upon showmanship and labeling accuracy as well as points for rarity.

Set up day can be stressful, and we have witnessed multiple competitors attempting to decide on the arrangement of the specimens in their exhibits under the duress of a bustling show floor. One recommendation is to stage the exhibit in a trial run before arriving in Tucson. This will allow time to experiment at leisure and achieve the most complimentary arrangement possible under calm conditions. Once the final display arrangement has been determined, photograph it to assist with the actual deployment.

TGMS Desautels and Lidstrom Award winner for 2013: Wendell Wilson
Desautels and Lidstrom Award winner for 2013; Wendell Wilson collection and photo.

TGMS Desautels Award winner for 2010: Alex Schauss
Desautels Award winner for 2010; Alex Schauss. Mark Mauthner photo.

We felt some anxiety prior to our first competition because of uncertainty about how our exhibit would be received by the judges. The results did yield some surprises, mainly related to how our specimens were ranked, but that should be expected. Judging a fine mineral competition is a subjective task and is predictably influenced by each judge’s knowledge, experience and personal preferences. If a judge seems critical, remember that all competitors are evaluated by the same panel. They genuinely want to make fair decisions based on the judging guidelines and can take advantage of a wealth of mineralogical knowledge on the floor during judging. The judges are collectors and former competitors and thereby appreciate the ability to make good selections as well as the effort required to field an exhibit.

Our personal experience with competition has been very rewarding. It has been an affirming experience invigorating our love for the hobby. We were delighted to share the joy of collecting with the community of collectors in a more direct way. As much as winning awards, the supportive comments from observers and comradery with other competitors during the show have been very gratifying. Janis and I entered for the Master level regular competition as well as the special categories of Paul Desautels and Walt Lidstrom Memorial Trophies in 2017. We were honored to be awarded the Lidstrom trophy that year. In 2018 we entered the same competitions and were awarded Masters Best of Show along with the Lidstrom for a second time. In 2019 we won Masters Best of Show once again. The Desautels Award has thus far proven to be very elusive.

One important realization we came away with is that we believe we could conceivably win the Desautels Award in any given year, depending upon who chooses to compete against us that year. That knowledge is good enough for us. We also recognize that there are collectors out there who could most likely win an award if they chose to enter. Many great collections exist that are not widely known. These collectors may have decided that competition is not why they are involved in this hobby. It is a personal decision. We also know that winning an award does not constitute owning the best collection in the hobby. To us it simply means that you possess a high-level collection that is worthy of recognition.

For anyone considering entering the competition, we would strongly suggest that you take some time while at the “Main Show” in Tucson to visit the competitive exhibits aisle. See first-hand what specimens competitors have entered and how they have displayed them. The awards are typically announced before the show opens on Saturday morning. If you are there early, you can see the winning exhibits and probably speak personally with the winners. They are usually available to share their excitement with anyone who is interested.

TGMS Desautels Award winner for 2014: Gail and Jim Spann
Desautels Award winner for 2014; Gail and Jim Spann. Wendell Wilson photo.

CONCLUSION

Whether you want to show off your specimens at the Tucson Show® or take it one step further and compete, the Show Committee heartily encourages you to bring your display. If in the process you can get your case evaluated in detail by highly knowledgeable and experienced collectors, does that not provide you with one more reason to display competitively? And what about the possibility of going home with a trophy and possibly one of the most prestigious trophies in the hobby, with either the Desautels or the Lidstrom (not taking anything away from the Denver Show because I (Les) am just as proud of our Pearl Trophies and their best-of-theme awards as our various Tucson Show® trophies)?

All of the information for competing at the Tucson Show® is available on the Tucson Gem and Mineral Show website. If there are any questions, feel free to contact Les Presmyk. See you at the next Tucson Show®!

MORE AWARD-WINNING CASES AND SPECIMENS

TGMS 2014 Lidstrom Award winner: Brent Lockhart
2014 Lidstrom Award winner; Brent Lockhart. Joe Budd Photo.

2015 TGMS Best of Show Masters winner: James & Charelle Webb
2015 Best of Show Masters winner; James & Charelle Webb. Bruce Friedman Photo.

2015 TGMS Lidstrom Award winner: Pinnacle Collection
2015 Lidstrom Award winner; Pinnacle Collection. Bruce Friedman Photo.

2016 TGMS Best of Show Masters winner: Gary & Rosemary White
2016 Best of Show Masters winner; Gary & Rosemary White. David Bristol Photo.

2016 TGMS Desautels Award winner: Brent Lockhart
2016 Desautels Award winner; Brent Lockhart. David Bristol Photo.

2016 TGMS Lidstrom Award winner; Jim Poteete
2016 Lidstrom Award winner; Jim Poteete. Gary White Photo.

2017 TGMS Lidstrom Award winner: Marc & Janis Countiss
2017 Lidstrom Award winner; Marc & Janis Countiss. Marc Countiss Photo.

2018 TGMS Best of Show Masters winner: Marc & Janis Countiss
2018 Best of Show Masters winner; Marc & Janis Countiss. Marc Countiss Photo.

2018 TGMS Desautels Award entries: Cases
2018 Desautels Award entries. Marc Countiss Photo.

2018 TGMS Lidstrom Award winner: Marc & Janis Countiss
2018 Lidstrom Award winner; Marc & Janis Countiss. Marc Countiss Photo.

2019 TGMS 2nd Place Novice winner
2019 2nd Place Novice winner. Marc Countiss Photo.

2019 TGMS Best Miniature - Best of Theme - Species winner; Irv Brown
2019 Best Miniature - Best of Theme - Species winner; Irv Brown. Marc Countiss Photo.

2019 TGMS Best of Show winner: Marc & Janis Countiss
2019 Best of Show winner; Marc & Janis Countiss. Marc Countiss Photo.

2019 TGMS Desautels Award entries
2019 Desautels Award entries. Marc Countiss Photo.

2019 TGMS Lidstrom Award winner: Irv Brown
2019 Lidstrom Award winner; Irv Brown. Marc Countiss.

2020 TGMS 1st Place Junior winner: Colton Kalina
2020 1st Place Junior winner; Colton Kalina. Marc Countiss Photo.

2020 TGMS Best Novice winner: David Tibbitts
2020 Best Novice winner; David Tibbitts. Marc Countiss Photo.

2020 TGMS Desautels & Lidstrom Award winner: Alyssa Donovan
2020 Desautels & Lidstrom Award winner; Carabas Collection. Marc Countiss Photo.

2020 TGMS Lidstrom Award winner: Alyssa Donovan
2020 Lidstrom Award winner; Carabas Collection. Marc Countiss Photo.

Competition Exhibits Viewers at the 2018 TGMS Show
Competition Exhibits Viewers at the 2018 Show. Marc Countiss Photo.

TGMS Paul Desautels Trophy
Paul Desautels Trophy. Marc Countiss Photo.

History of Specimen Mining at Hardangervidda, Norway

Apr 28, 2020

Intro

Anatase was named in 1801 and is one of five naturally occurring forms of titanium dioxide. It is found all over the world, on all continents, (even Antarctica!), but Norway hadn’t been known as a producer of showy, display specimens. That all changed in the 1970s when quartz crystals sprinkled with large (5-10mm) anatase crystals from “Hardangervidda, Norway” hit the European market, and specimens soon started reaching North American markets as well. This was the first major “alpine-type” deposit found in Norway and was of great interest to geologists as well as mineral collectors. The story about the discovery and the manner in which the locality was exploited raised a number of interesting points about Norwegian law concerning mineral collecting during that time. Today, the deposit is essentially exhausted and the locality is a national park.

Anatase with Quartz from Hardangervidda, 6.0cm specimen. Watercolor artwork by mineral artist Leah Luten. Alex Venzke Specimen.

Location and Discovery

Hardangervidda is a mountain plateau in central southern Norway, covering parts of the counties of Buskerud, Hordaland and Telemark. It is the largest plateau of its kind in Europe, with a cold year-round alpine climate, and one of Norway's largest glaciers, Hardangerjøkulen, is situated here. Much of the plateau is protected as part of Hardangervidda National Park. Much of the Hardangervidda's geology is extremely ancient. The rolling hills of the Hardangervidda are the remnants of mountains that were worn down by the action of glaciers during the Ice Ages. The bedrock is mainly of Precambrian and Cambro-Silurian origin.

Hardangervidda, in the southern part of Norway

Hardangervidda, especially the western part, also called Hardangervidda West in recent mineralogical literature, which belongs to the Hordaland County, is famous for producing great specimens of anatase and quartz. The localities that have produced most specimens are Matskorhæ (now protected) and Dyrfonni. Clusters of transparent quartz crystals dusted with blue-black bipyramidal, sharp 5-10 mm large anatase crystals were typical specimens found at this site, especially in the 1970s. The locality is today considered exploited. It is located near Mt. Matskorhæ, east of the Ringedalsvatnet Lake, outside the border of the Hardangervidda National Park. It is also located within the Ullensvang Statsalmenning (statsalmenning = a government forest and mountain common land with certain laws and rules for the use of the land). The area covered by the Ullensvang statsalmenning is divided by both Ullensvang and Odda municipalities, and Matskorhæ is located within the Odda municipality. It was nicknamed "Grisebingen" (the pig pen) by Norwegian collectors, due to the dirty working conditions at the locality. The deposit is located 1300 meters high in elevation on the western side of Hardangervidda and is inaccessible for 10-11 months of the year due to deep snow.

Before development, the surface expression of the deposit was a large cavity (~1 cubic meter) filled with quartz crystals, up to 10 cm long, with scattered anatase crystals above a large talus slope littered with quartz crystals. The cavity had been exposed 6000-8000 years ago during the last retreat of the glaciers. An old reindeer-hunting lookout was found on a cliff above the deposit so this site was likely known from antiquity; reindeer are still found here to this day! Quartz crystals from here may well have been used as tools by Stone Age hunters.

In modern times, the locality was first visited by collectors in 1966, when the Tyssefallene A/S power company began building dams in the area and several workers learned about the hole from local residents and started removing minerals to decorate their homes with. Norwegian concession laws require that any mineral finds on a concession property must be reported to state authorities, such as the Geological Survey or the Museum. A person falsely presenting themselves as a professional geologist from a Norwegian university visited the dam site and asked if any minerals had been found, was led by the company to the locality, due to Norwegian concession laws. This “professional geologist” and his associates began mining operations in 1969 under the false pretense of “scientific investigation” of the Hardangervidda deposit. From 1969 to 1974, the construction workers and the “geologist” and associates extracted large quantities of material. There was a market for single quartz crystals and small clusters with anatase so, unfortunately, little or no attempt was made to remove large, complete clusters. The majority of work done over this 5 year period was done with an L-shaped steel bar, with which crystals were broken from the matrix and dragged out of the hole.

Anatase on Quartz, Mount Storenut, near Hardangervidda, Hordaland, Norway. Ex Martin Lewadny collection. 3.5cm.

In 1974, a group of amateur mineralogists visited the deposit and succeeded in taking out several remarkable clusters. They reported the deposit to the Mineralogisk-Geologisk Museum, donated their finds, and suggested the deposit be put under special protection to stop the vandalism being done by the commercial operators. The Museum contacted the power company, the State Forestry Authority, and the police to protect the area. In the end, the power company property line was posted, the company warden and local sheriff were empowered to turn away unauthorized people, and the cable lift, which had provided easy access to the deposit, was dismantled since construction on the dam had been completed earlier. There were expeditions by the Museum and amateur mineralogists in 1975 and 1976, which were focused on mapping, sampling, and exploratory digging. They concluded that very little significant material could be removed from the deposit without extensive extraction work but the deposit and dump are geologically interesting and would remain under legal protection.

Geology

 The deposit occurs in the phyllites of the Holmasjø Formation. The phyllites are part of a sheet that was thrust over the Precambrian granite basement during the Caledonian orogenic event. On top of the phyllites lies another thrust sheet of Precambrian granites and gneisses. Foliation is dipped at a low angle and is cut with subhorizantal thrust zones parallel to the major thrust faults. Some minor faults are filled with finely crushed rock but others are brecciated with large blocks of phyllite. The breccia zones are filled with milky quartz lenses and full of druzy cavities. After the thrusting, the phyllites were weakly folded and created NE-trending en échelon gash veins, which were filled with druzy quartz. In those veins, the quartz was typically rutilated and anatase was often found where open space had formed. The original deposit occurred at the end of one such vein that was filling a minor thrust plane. Minor fault movement provided access to large open areas where mineralized solutions were able to deposit quartz and TiO2 minerals. The movement continued after crystallization of quartz and anatase; many anatase covered quartz were broken off and regrown so doubly terminated “floaters” are common.

The weak breccia zone where anatase was concentrated was easily excavated with hand tools. The tunnel follows the edge of the quartz lens and the greatest concentration of anatase was found in a zone where the gash veins were visible in the roof and floor of the tunnel; the abundance and quality of the anatase quickly and sharply dropped off in all directions from that zone. The quartz crystals come off the phyllite matrix easily but great care was needed to extract large groups. That is why many of the anatase on quartz crystals you see today are single points or smaller clusters. Very few large clusters were unearthed intact from Hardangervidda.

[1] Griffin, W.L., Garmo, T., Løvenskiold, H., Palmstrøm, A. (1977) Anatase from Norway. Mineralogical Record, 8, 266-271.
[2] Matskorhæ (Matskorhae), Hardangervidda West, Odda, Hordaland, Norway (https://www.mindat.org/loc-2480.html)
[3] Robert B. Cook (2002) Connoisseur's Choice: Anatase, Hardangervidda, Ullensvang, Norway, Rocks & Minerals, 77:6, 400-403, DOI: 10.1080/00357529.2002.9924892

We'd like to extend a special thanks to friend Alex Venzke for authoring this article.

Little Wonders: Connoisseur Thumbnails in the Contemporary Collector Market

Apr 7, 2020

Written by Dr. Jim Houran, Jim Bleess, and Dr. Alex Schauss. Adapted with permission for publication on iRocks.com

Thumbnail fine mineral specimens from China Selection of Thumbnail mineral specimens at the 2013 exhibit of China Crystalline Treasures, highlighting specimens from Dr. Robert Lavinsky's private collection of Chinese minerals, with additions from 20 other collectors, at the University of Arizona's Flandrau Science Center

Introduction

Mineral collectors generally differentiate six specimen sizes, starting with the smallest, termed micromounts, followed by thumbnails, toenails, miniatures, small cabinet and ending with large cabinet or museum-size pieces. In some cultures massive size is equated to quality, but collectors past and present have more often observed that bigger is not always better. Rather, the opposite is usually the reality with minerals. Large, perfect crystals are uncommon for several reasons. Most notably, bigger crystals require more space to grow, which often is unavailable. Even with open space, the diffusion rates are typically such that it is ‘easier’ to nucleate a new crystal than for ions to migrate to the surface of an already growing crystal, encouraging the growth of more crystals rather than larger ones. Large, pristine crystals form only in environments allowing both ample space and high diffusion rates, such as pegmatites. Therefore, smaller crystals offer the highest degree of perfection and for this reason they have historically been very collectible.

In particular, Wendell Wilson and James Houran (2012) documented the long but somewhat quiet history and development of thumbnail collecting as a specialization. Thumbnails are specimens that can be oriented to fit within an imaginary 2.5 cm (1-inch) cube. In formal exhibit competition the unspoken amendment to this rule is that specimens should be oriented aesthetically within this space. Thumbnail specimens – for private collection or public competition – typically measure over ½ × ½ inch but generally not much larger than 1 × 1 inches and are considered to be the smallest size that can be appreciated without optical magnification.

This makes thumbnails ideal for collecting, study and display. Prominent USA dealers and collectors such as Jim and Dawn Minette, Willard "Perky" Perkin (1907-1991), after whom the standard Perky Box is named, and others advanced the collecting of specific suites of minerals deemed "competitive thumbnails sizes, by the 1970s. Although it seems that "collector-dealers" started the trend to competitive thumbnail collecting, it was not long before "collector-collectors" got in on it as well. A well known example from the East Coast circuit is the collection of Jennie Areson of New York

Areson's mineral collection was highly appreciated by the Tucson Gem and Mineral Show Early scorecard from the Long Island Gem and Mineral Festival judging Areson's competition case, back in 1971!

An aside on Perky, courtesy of (Wendell Wilson's) biography archive on the Mineralogical Record Site "Perkin was one of the first dealers to specialize in thumbnail-size specimens, and he had a talent for aesthetically trimming and mounting them. He built a fine personal mineral collection of high-quality cabinet-size and smaller specimens which he placed in drawers and on glass shelves in big glass-fronted display cases lining the walls of a small garage in his Burbank home. He also developed a strong interest in micromounting." In the early 1956-1959 he worked for three years for mineral dealer George Burnham ("Burminco") (q.v.) in Monrovia, California. While working in Burnham's shop, Perkin was shown a small, cubical, black plastic box by a traveling salesman. It inspired the invention of what became known as the "perky" box, a 1.25-inch box for thumbnail specimens, which Perkin had manufactured and which he began selling to other collectors. When the number of orders coming in became overwhelming he sold the box business to someone else, but the name "perky box" stuck. In 1971 tragedy struck in the form of the Sylmar earthquake, which shattered the glass cases and shelves in his garage; the beautiful specimens crashed to the bottom of the cases together and out onto the concrete floor amid piles of broken glass. Perkin appeared to take the loss with good grace, but much of his enthusiasm for collecting minerals had died. Soon he began selling off the surviving specimens from the drawers, retaining only his thumbnails and micromounts."

Although traditionally most popular in the United States, thumbnail collecting is an important and quickly growing segment of the mineral hobby due to several factors working in tandem, for instance, generally lower prices than popular hand-size specimens, easier handling and storage requirements and of course, the higher tendency for crystal perfection. Numerous mineral species also are known only in smaller sizes, meaning that some unique thumbnails may even qualify for a coveted "world's best" designation. Top pieces exemplify the quality and importance small specimens can achieve when there is a balance of aesthetics, scientific relevance and historical importance. This is why many major collections have included thumbnails even though it may not have been a deliberate intention. Or, collectors who amassed large collections in the 1960s-1980s later separated out thumbnails into discrete suites once they went down that road by love of the minerals anyhow. A prime example is John Barlow, who had 5000 larger pieces and loved all sizes, yet eventually had separated out his thumbnails into a separate display collection with separate numbering. He later sold them to Rob Lavinsky apart from the sale of the main part of the Barlow Collection in 1998, and they remain in circulation today, recognizable by his own custom special display bases that fit his custom cabinets for thumbnails designed to make them "show off" amongst larger pieces.

Neptunite with Benitoite - This is an exquisite miniature highlighted by a very lustrous, black crystal of neptunite, measuring 2.7 cm in length and elegantly nestled in a vug of natrolite. On either side of the neptunite crystal is a lustrous blue benitoite crystal, each measuring 9 mm in length. Ex. John Barlow collection. Note that this is still attached to his display competition base which he would have used when exhibiting his core thumbnail collection in Tucson in the 1990s!

Thumbnail collecting is a flexible and egalitarian specialty, open to beginning and advanced collectors who want inexpensive yet highly diverse specimens that require minimal storage space. That said, top-quality thumbnails have received a resurgence of interest and market value. This article reviews a confluence of three forces that have arguably helped to produce this heightened interest in fine thumbnails or what Thomas Moore, Mineralogical Record editor, aptly termed “connoisseur thumbnails” (Mineralogical Record, 33, p. 183).

The Rise of ‘Connoisseur’ Collecting

Interest in connoisseur thumbnails has been in step with an increased interest in fine specimens in general. To be sure, mineral collecting as a scientific, social and aesthetic endeavor as it is understood now is a relatively recent development that has been inextricably linked with the notion of connoisseurship (Cooper, 2010; Wilson, 1994). As Cooper (2010) noted, “With the rise, during the 17th century, of a scientific elite and a corresponding development of science as a gentlemanly pursuit, mineral specimens, along with all other productions of the natural world, came to be esteemed not only as tools with which to grasp the fundamental truths of nature, or as guides to hidden, exploitable wealth, but, increasingly, as objects desirable in their own right…’” (emphasis added, p. 5).

However, this holistic perspective has become increasingly diluted in modern times. Looking honestly at the collecting community today many hobbyists insist on differentiating two types of collectors, put simply as ‘purists’ and ‘elitists.’ These categories have been framed and discussed in different ways – for example, those who field-collect versus purchase (‘silver pick’) specimens, those who seek representative examples versus ‘trophy’ (elite quality) specimens, and those who advocate mineral science versus mineral art. In other words, purists equate connoisseurship with knowledge of the scientific aspects of specimens, whereas elitists are assumed to regard connoisseurship as rooted in understanding the aesthetic aspects of specimens. A cursory review of various online discussion boards like Mindat.org and the Friends of Mineralogy Forum (FMF) at Fabre Minerals reveals these perceptions to be quite strong and sometimes downright contentious when it comes to ‘purists’ commenting on connoisseur or ‘elite’ collecting, and sometimes vice versa.

Assemblage of fine minerals and crystals - thumbnail sized minerals Assembling little treasures of fine minerals can be a cost-effective and rewarding pursuit.

The perceived distinction perhaps boils down to competing definitions of specimen significance, and by extension, a philosophy about the ‘correct’ approach to mineral collecting. Most collectors publicly agree that there is no singular, proper way to collect, except perhaps encouraging individuals to “collect what you like.” Yet in the same breath most will also concur with the seemingly contradictory but well-cited piece of advice to “buy the best you can afford.” In one scenario specimen quality is not a prerequisite, but in the other it is. Connoisseur collecting takes the latter advice one step further by motivating individuals to “buy the best there is.” This stringent focus on quality (significance combined with aesthetics) is actually nothing new. Charles Henry Pennypacker (1845-1911), collector, part-time dealer and frequent contributor to The Mineral Collector, levied harsh criticism at the hobby even in its early days. He asserted that a mineral collection is a representation of the collector, and as such, inexpensive specimens and bragging about “good deals you got on your specimens” rather than striving for the best, means that both you and your collection were an embarrassment (Lininger, 1993, p. 9). Of course, the collecting is personal and this is a spectrum, that also depends on the desire (and financing) of the collector. Luckily, Thumbnails in particular among other mineral classes, lend themselves to appealing to players of all means.

Of course, price is neither a synonym nor guarantee of quality. The same is true for the marketing claims of mineral dealers. Jolyon Ralph (2013) of Mindat argued that, “Phrases such as ‘world-class’, ‘museum quality,’ ‘exceptional,’ ‘unique’ or ‘ikon’ are meaningless marketing adjectives. Just ignore them, and I wouldn't do them any service by promoting the use of them in a club magazine.” There is some truth to this observation; published authorities have rightfully cautioned that a mineral evaluation is only as meaningful as the knowledge and experience of the person making it. But the basic assertion that such descriptors per se are meaningless hyperbole is not shared by connoisseur-level collectors, since quality is not a purely subjective concept.

Many knowledgeable collectors, dealers and journal editors alike have outlined a generally agreed upon set of core attributes of connoisseur specimens (e.g., Bancroft, 1984; Wilson, 1990; Wilson, Bartsch & Mauthner, 2004; Smale, 2006; Halpern, 2005; Thompson, 2007; Currier, 2009; Wilson & Houran, 2012; Houran, 2013; Lavinsky & Moore, 2013). These sources effectively explain specimen aesthetics, i.e., the visual, sculptural qualities that are most desirable to Western collectors. Plus, the ongoing record of mineral finds in the academic literature regularly informs collectors about what constitutes the highest development of a species to date in terms of color, form and condition, i.e., specimen significance. Contrary to the apparent prevalence of ‘purist’ attitudes in its membership, Mindat also implicitly incorporates an ‘elitist’ perspective with its ongoing “Best Minerals” project. This initiative aims to document significant specimens by species and locality. There is therefore unquestionably a hierarchy of quality, with aesthetics and significance defining the level synonymous with ‘exceptional,’ ‘world-class’ or ‘connoisseur’ specimens.

The connoisseur philosophy is visible in the hobby in many other ways. One of the most obvious, pervasive and influential examples is the multitude of well-produced periodicals and books that outline the criteria for specimen quality, discuss the major localities where the best examples are found and present illustrative specimens. Thompson (2007) and Currier (2008) identified the best classic and current texts on minerals that serve as excellent primers. Plus, the many outstanding Mineralogical Record supplements, extraLapis issues and the monographs from Lithographie all tend to show the finest specimens from top collectors. This literature suggests that the number of connoisseur collectors is healthy, even though they may not constitute the majority in the mineral hobby.

The editorial priority in illustrating only the best specimens in periodicals has detractors who complain the practice is elitist rather than scientific. Speaking to this issue, Mineralogical Record editor-in-chief Wendell Wilson countered that the practice was unquestionably educational for readers (Praszkier, 2012, p. 16; cf. Wilson, 2013). He reasoned that the best specimens show the fullest development of the various features and qualities of a species, which collectors can then extrapolate downward to lesser specimens. On the other hand, no one can look at lesser specimens and know what the best will look like. Wilson’s point is well taken and as long been adopted elsewhere. For example, an early edition of The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Rocks and Minerals (Chesterman, 1978) stated that minerals should be illustrated that “...are of finer quality than the amateur is likely to find; this is necessary to show clearly the distinctive qualities of color, crystal form, and habit” (p. 40).

Connoisseur specimens transcend aesthetics and the investment potential of minerals as commodities. The trend in some circles therefore to characterize connoisseurs as ‘aesthetically’ rather than ‘scientifically’ minded collectors altogether misses the point. Connoisseur thumbnail collectors, at the very least, tend to appreciate and recognize both perspectives as two sides of the same proverbial coin (Wilson & Houran, 2012). There is a clear understanding that specimens with both significance and aesthetics are rare scientific objects that represent the coming together of ideal physical conditions. Connoisseur specimens are beautiful and easily studied geological marvels that represent the highest level of development of a species. Collectors appreciate that the aesthetics exist precisely because of the scientific forces that were at play in the first place. 

Availability of Connoisseur Thumbnail Specimens

Improved mining operations and a deliberate focus on careful specimen retrieval and preparation have produced an influx of interest and availability of connoisseur minerals of all sizes. Complementing new sources of specimens are frequent offerings from old collections. This has been especially good for thumbnail collectors. In fact, the past decade or so has seen a rise in the number of connoisseur thumbnails come to market from de-accessioned private collections. One could even argue that there has been an unprecedented flood of fine material from notable private collectors over this time span. Sometimes institutions also deaccession specimens, such as was the case with the Philadelphia Academy of Sciences (Wilson, 2006). Some of these collections were exclusively thumbnails but most were not – a fact that underscores how general collectors include smaller specimens when they are the best available of a species.

Sales of legacy collections like the Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, Herb Obodda (White, 2008) and James and Dawn Minette (Staebler, 2010) collections are always exciting events for collectors. There is also a considerable element of psychology at work that lends credibility and desirability to specimens from such famous collections. This is discussed in more detail below, but the notion of “social proof” is relevant here. Social proof is about conformity, and when many seasoned buyers flock around a recently released collection, less informed buyers will assume that they should participate as well. The tactic has notable benefits. For example, serious-minded newcomers to the hobby can efficiently enhance their collections by culling specimens from previous collections that were built on connoisseurship. The difficult work has been done in this scenario, i.e., selecting the best available specimens of given species. This can come at high financial costs; however, since connoisseur specimens are rarely low-priced and overlooked ‘sleepers.’ That said, significant collections, such as that of Salim Edde founder of the MIM Museum in Beirut (Wilson, 2014, 2015) or the Perkins Sams collection now with the Houston Museum of Science, have been built in good part by capitalizing on the previous connoisseurship efforts of others (and by the way, they will include thumbnails as well in their collections if they believe they are best of species or intellectually interesting, despite their reputations for having minerals of larger sizes).

Perhaps more than ever collectors have the largest and most diverse selection of connoisseur-level material. Still, the concomitant increase in prices has meant that it often takes significant financial resources to obtain the best pieces. The demand in the current market for connoisseur specimens, even thumbnail sized, suggests that the connoisseur community has healthy numbers and competition for the finest specimens will remain fierce. Many contemporary collectors, to be sure, have gained great reputations in the hobby by-passing larger-scale specimens in favor of connoisseur thumbnails.

This latter fact often puzzles those in the hobby who proclaim, “I collect minerals, not sizes” – a phrase attributed to collector Neal Yedlin (Wilson, 1990). True enough, to our knowledge American collectors are the only ones who consistently make size a rigid collecting requirement. The obvious and practical reason for focusing on size is overcoming restricted storage and display space. But the deeper and simpler truth is that thumbnail aficionados are under a friendly spell. Thumbnails are visually rewarding in large part because smallness defines their charm. In turn, this charm eclipses the mental demand for specimen size. The attribute of charm carries a dimensional quality as substantial as length or height.

Wendell WIlson thumbnail collection on display Wendell Wilson has assembled a fantastic, award-winning collection of thumbnails.

Collecting small specimens is not new – the novelty comes from the recent development of assembling an entire collection of strictly (and mostly uniformly) small specimens. There are many ways to structure mineral collections, and thumbnails should be as valid as the other forms of specialization discussed by Dunn and Francis (1990) – after all, no one ever seems to say, “I collect minerals, not localities, crystal classes, mineral classes, etc. Rather than a focus on size per se, it has been suggested that thumbnails are ultimately about collecting uniformly charming specimens that represent the highest level of development; these just naturally tend to be thumbnail size (Houran, 2014). Indeed, a well-chosen assembly of 1-inch specimens, mounted and lighted, is stunning. The visual appeal alone should guarantee that thumbnails will remain a center event in the hobby for many years to come.

Prevalence of Thumbnail Resources and Exhibits

Mineral shows understandably promote larger, spectacular specimens for public exhibits like the famous ‘Aztec Sun’ legrandite or the ‘Rose of Itatiaia’ elbaite. These are extreme mineral collecting, the stratosphere of mineral experience. This attention to ‘big and beautiful’ pieces at mineral shows; however, is typically balanced with smaller specimens like thumbnail displays of an educational or competitive sort. This exposes more people to the thumbnail niche, as well as helps to educate viewers on the current benchmarks as to what constitutes aesthetics and significance for given species or varieties, as well as for examples from specific localities.

Many recent exhibits and competitive cases have consequently built on the first two market forces (rise of connoisseur collecting and availability of thumbnails) such that the quality of the thumbnails shown typically serves as an extremely strong complement to – if not matches or exceeds in quality and diversity – the larger specimens on exhibit.

The single most active exhibitor popularizing this model in recent times, has to be Herb and Monika Obodda. A dealer since his childhood days, Herb traveled to Kabul in the late 1960's and literally opened up the country for mineral collectors. Over the decades between then and the sale of his collection (to Rob Lavinsky at Arkenstone) in 2008, Herb collected for himself, and particularly kept many fine thumbnails and miniatures. As he says in an interview "Well, almost nobody would pay for good small things at the time I started this, so why sell them? I like rocks , too. I figured I'd keep some things"....and this led to what was surely the finest overall locality-constrained collection of Afghani and Pakistani thumbnails. After he (semi-)retired, he began exhibiting his personal collection at Munich, Springfield, and in a special exhibition in Tucson in 2007. Now dispersed into major collections all over the world, you can see in the photos below how the Obodda's experimented with different display formats to show their thumbnails in the presence of, and synergistic with, larger specimens as part of a larger exhibition of the collection.

 

Thumbnail fine minerals; Obodda exhibit at University of Arizona Thumbnail display from Dangerous Beauty: Minerals of the Hindu Kush at the University of Arizona's Flandrau Science Center. R. Lavinsky photo

 

Thumbnail specimens from the Herb and Monika Obodda collection, on display at the Springfield Mineral Show in 2008. Featured here are specimens from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obodda photo.

 

Obodda thumbnail exhibit at the 2007 Munich Show. R. Lavinsky photo.

 

Some of the most prominent displays of connoisseur thumbnails in recent years include the following:

Denver Gem and Mineral Show

In addition to the formal competitions, major collectors routinely contribute top-quality thumbnail exhibits for educational purposes and general enjoyment. Typically these arrays do not focus on a given species but rather showcase a wonderful diversity of material and even collectors. These displays also serve as instructive glimpses into the personalities, styles and knowledge levels of the individual contributors, which can be educational and insightful for any collector. For example, the 2016 Denver Show featured a major thumbnail display by Ralph Clark that was specifically noted in the Mineralogical Record’s show report with a photo that took up nearly half a page (Moore, 2017, p. 138). In describing the impact of Clark’s case, Tom Moore wrote, “This was…a downright intoxicating array of best-of-all-possible thumbnails and “toenails,” and great was the wonder…of serious collectors (not only thumbnailers), who crowded this case all through the show” (p. 138).

Selection of thumbnails from Ralph Clarks mineral collection At the 2017 Denver Mineral Show, Ralph Clark exhibited a MAJOR display of his thumbnail collection!

Tucson Gem and Mineral Show (TGMS – Main Show)

This legendary event has traditionally set the standard for both competitive and educational displays. Many thumbnail displays have won competitions over the years, but most recently there has been a dedicated focus on making thumbnails featured educational exhibits. This trend began in 2008 with the American Mineral Treasures (AMT) project. The Crater of Diamonds, Pike Co., Arkansas locality (Howard & Houran, 2008) was represented by 16 famous diamonds finds, including the extraordinary 17-carat canary-yellow crystal from the Roebling Collection at the Smithsonian Institution (cf. Wilson, 2008). This case had the distinction of being the only thumbnail display among the AMT exhibits. Two years later, the authors coordinated a community exhibit titled “Connoisseur Thumbnails” – an unprecedented effort that was highlighted in the MR show report (Moore, 2010). The display brought together 92 specimens from 19 collectors. This successful format was repeated again in 2013 as illustrated in Wilson and Houran’s (2012) article, “The Elegant World of Thumbnail Minerals” (Moore, 2013b). It is also worth noting that in this same year mineral dealer and collector Diana Weinrich showed exceptional pieces from her private thumbnail collection.

Thumnbnails, Allan Young exhibit, 2005 TGMS Mineral Show Allan Young swept up awards at the 2005 Tucson Gem and Mineral Show, including the Desautels, Lidstrom, and Best in Show!

 

Tucson Gem and Mineral Show exhibit winning case - Dr. Alex Schauss In 2010, Dr. Alex Schauss was awarded the Desautels and Lidstrom prizes for his exhibit of thumbnail specimens; Tucson Gem and Mineral Show

Mineralientage München

Although many dealers at all price points have offered thumbnails throughout the 50-year history of this important show, the 2012 event was landmark. The show theme was “African Secrets” and for the first time in its history an exhibit composed exclusively of thumbnails was invited and featured. Titled “African Thumbnail Treasures,” this display brought together 182 specimens from 18 collectors representing four continents. An entire wall of the “African Secrets” exhibit area was cordoned off for four differently themed cases: Tsumeb, Classsics, Esoteric (rare or unusual species) and Gemstones (see Moore, 2013a). A fifth ‘potpourri’ case of miscellaneous African thumbnails was even added during final set up due to popular demand of the show organizers, who were pleasantly surprised that this array more than held its own compared to the myriad of larger and highly important African specimens displayed in the same area.

University of Arizona (UA)

In 2013, the Flandreau Science Center and Museum at UA (Tucson, Arizona) launched a year-long exhibit called “Crystalline Treasures: The Mineral Heritage of China.” The exhibit predominantly featured the important Chinese collection of Dr. Robert Lavinsky (Moore, 2013b; Liu et al., 2013). To complement the wide assortment of miniature and cabinet sized specimens, Dr. Lavinsky and the other exhibit organizers invited a special case devoted to top Chinese thumbnails and toenail size specimens (65 in total, representing 16 collectors). This mini-display within the larger exhibit was presented via a round pedestal case in the middle of the exhibit hall allowing a full 360-degree view of all pieces. It proved to be one of the most popular aspects of the exhibit.

Chinese thumbnail specimens Head on view of thumbnails at the China Crystalline treasures exhibit, Tucson Flandreau Museum, 2013, including specimens from 20 collectors. This was a first, in exhibiting in the round, so people could move around the case and look more intimately at the specimens on exhibit. This will surely set a future trend for museums for thumbnail displays! Bryan Swoboda Photo

Commercial Media

There have been two especially noteworthy efforts highlighting connoisseur thumbnails. First, the Lithographie publishing firm released its highly anticipated book, The Jim & Dawn Minette Collection (Staebler, 2010). Secondly, Bryan Swoboda of Blue Cap Productions launched the new DVD series “Mineral Perspectives” in 2010, with an inaugural three-volume set devoted to connoisseur thumbnails (to date only the first two volumes have been released). This series utilized new photographic techniques developed by Swoboda and Jeff Scovil to present specimens in extremely high resolution, and almost 3D-like quality, while in 360-degree rotation. This approach allows viewers to study the specimens in supreme detail and under ideal lighting conditions.

 

Although we have not heard this discussed before, another consideration is that thumbnail displays like those mentioned above lend themselves well to psychological principles that help to entice viewers. To illustrate, photographs accompanying this article show various exhibits in recent years that have attempted to leverage such principles. It is interesting to explore their particulars.

The Hope Diamond is one of the most recognizable gems in the world. The Hope Diamond at the Smithsonian, one of the world's most famous gems. By David Bjorgen - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0

First, most of the thumbnail exhibits have been community (or multi-contributor) exhibits that showcase famous specimens from respected contributors. Some collectors emphatically state that specimen provenance carries no weight with them, but many more collectors openly or privately acknowledge that it matters. Wendell Wilson and Wayne Thompson, for example, explain the attraction to provenance as a reflection of historical stewardship (Thompson, 2007; Praszier, 2012). More to the point, there is scientific evidence that contextual information like this biases our evaluations. Indeed, the perception of aesthetic objects is not rational but instead often is linked to accompanying information. For instance, Huang et al. (2011) compared how people’s brains reacted to paintings assumed to be authentic with their responses to paintings represented as fakes. They found that the responses to viewing an ‘authentic’ artwork were deeply pleasurable, likened to tasting good food or winning a bet. Yet, this aesthetic pleasure was replaced with brain activity associated with strategy and planning when people were told the artwork was ‘fake.’ Beauty is apparently not just in the eye of the holder; it is in part based on suggestion and expectation effects. Consider the Hope Diamond (Smithsonian Institution) or Mona Lisa (the Louvre). There are many other larger attractions in these museums, but these two famous artifacts are among the most popular and sought out of all the holdings. Clearly, the cognitive-emotional process that produces the experience of aesthetics and interest is not determined solely by the size of a target or focal point. The point is simply that larger specimens do not automatically command more attention. Mystique of an object is perhaps the most influential factor.

Second, there is the concept of visual balance and flow. Robinson (1999) presented an excellent overview of exhibit layout and design fundamentals, and additional guidance on effective displays was given more recently by Starkey (2012). Due to the smaller specimen size, viewers must take time to study thumbnail exhibits more so than cases containing larger specimens that can be easily and quickly ‘sized up’ from a distance. All things equal, mineral exhibitors arguably have a better opportunity to leverage the psychological principles of balance and flow in thumbnail arrays. More specimens on display provide viewers a greater diversity of colors, textures and shapes than in competing exhibits. This diversity alone often promotes sustained interest.

But we suspect that additional psychological factors explain why thumbnail exhibits engross onlookers so effectively. Vogt and Magnussen (2007) found that artists and laypeople visually evaluate pictures differently. Whereas trained artists are able to evaluate entire details of a broad scene, untrained laypeople tend to focus only on a select number of elements that are immediately most salient to the perceptual system. There is much to take in with a thumbnail exhibit, and in the absence of clear focal points, for example viewers’ eyes being drawn automatically to larger, dramatic looking specimens, people must take time to absorb all the content. This process of visual absorption is expected to inherently sustain interest because of a mixture of predictable and unpredictable elements. Think about it, viewers are experiencing a set of similarly-sized objects which is very predictable and, in the minds of many people, psychologically satisfying (harmonious or symmetrical) and visually cute. But the variety and diversity of species, colors, shapes, luster, etc in a well-designed exhibit simultaneously introduce an element of unpredictability.

Our sense is that the cognitive processing of this mixture of predictable and unpredictable elements creates an aesthetic experience akin to “pink noise” (cf. Voss & Clark, 1978). By way of explanation, there are three main categories of sound based on their mathematical elements: white noise, brown noise, and pink noise. White noise is random noise. A graph of white noise shows no specific organization, and the sound of white noise is often perceived as irritating and disturbing. Brown noise is very structured and organized. People usually perceive brown noise as mechanical and rigid. Pink noise is more structured than white noise but not as rigid as brown noise. This noise is called ‘1/f,’ meaning that it falls between the two extremes.

Pink noise is the mathematical nature of nearly all human-composed music, and this 1/f structure has been found in the mathematical elements of many social (behavioral) and physical phenomena as well (see e.g., Guastello et al., 2011). In short, well-composed thumbnail (and up to small miniature) exhibits may well elicit a viewer experience that is fundamentally the visual and cognitive equivalent of listening to an appealing musical score (cf. Houran & Bleess, 2014).

Discussion

Thumbnails are charming little wonders that have been prominently on the mineral scene for about 60 years now. It may be tempting to regard them merely as American curiosities, but fine specimens are regularly found within the world’s top collections. European collectors also certainly recognize great thumbnails when they see them. Knowledgeable senior collectors gave one of us (JB) a valuable hint early on – when looking through museum drawers, look for thumbnails. European collections have always held small specimens of superior quality. There may not be many, but they are there. Long before the term ‘thumbnail’ came into use, the great collections across Europe and elsewhere held small specimens whose charm alone, regardless of size, caused them to be curated, if not displayed.

thumbnail exhibit at the tucson gem and mineral show The “Connoisseur Thumbnails” community exhibit at the 2013 Tucson Gem and Mineral Show. The Mineralogical Record show report called it as one of the finest displays of the show. Wendell Wilson photo.

The market forces discussed here have elevated thumbnails across the worldwide collecting community. With this in mind, thumbnail cases that win competitions remain controversial. Many contend that smaller and larger sized specimens should be relegated to different competition classes, since it is considerably more difficult to find larger specimens with the same level of perfection and aesthetics as many thumbnails. Thompson (2007) similarly noted that “Most mineral pockets will produce numerous smaller pieces for every larger piece. This rule applies to the ratio of good thumbnails to miniatures; miniatures to cabinets; and cabinets to museum-size specimens” (p. 22). There is no disputing this sentiment, but it would be misguided to assume therefore that connoisseur thumbnails are abundant in nature or on the market.

Case in point – not many years ago to show thumbnails in formal competition a display was required to hold fifty specimens and mostly of different species. Duplication was allowed so long as the specimens were of different locality or crystal habit. For the most part a collector kept to fifty different species, and this number certainly forced matters toward rarity, more so than the current thirty-two pieces now required. Frankly fifty was a high number, and very few exhibitors could hold quality throughout the display. A collection had a few ‘good ones’ but quality drifted downward fairly abruptly after about twenty-five specimens. This is still often true, but with the required thirty-two pieces in today’s competition a display has less far to drift. Quality points at the Tucson Gem and Mineral Show (TGMS) competitions are simply not easy to accumulate.

About twenty years ago the required 90-points to earn a blue ribbon in Masters Competition was lowered to 85. To state it bluntly, no one could keep the quality curve sufficiently flat throughout the range of thirty-two specimens; forget fifty, thirty-two specimens was a rigid test few exhibitors could pass. Speaking even more bluntly, not many can earn 85-points either. A person competing for a ribbon at the TGMS cannot risk losing any rarity points (5) or showmanship points (10) if planning to win a blue ribbon in Masters Competition at the TGMS, which is a major accomplishment. Connoisseur-level material in larger sizes is indeed comparatively rarer than thumbnails, but building a connoisseur thumbnail collection remains a considerable challenge. On the other hand, the challenge of the hunt is a large part of the appeal and satisfaction (Wilson & Houran, 2012).

The term thumbnail may not be eloquent, but it does serve to identify exactly what we are talking about. Crystalline excellence and specimen cuteness are the driving forces for connoisseur thumbnail collectors. For sure, specimens typically have razor keenness, and, in gemstones, near optical transparency. These added qualities characterize the extreme fineness that is widely appealing for those in the hobby. Regardless of whether one delves in this specialty, many collectors find viewing these little wonders as richly satisfying as viewing any other specimen sizes. This is especially so given that thumbnails often have attributes unavailable in larger pieces.

Serandite is prized from Mont St. Hilaire, and this is a fantastic example of a thumbnail. Serandite with Analcime, Mont St Hilaire, Canada, Jim Houran collection, Joe Budd Photo

For example, consider sérandite from Canada. These crystals are fairly common in poorer qualities, but patient collectors can eventually find more desirable examples with well-formed crystals, good luster and a saturated color. Yet more can be expected from Mother Nature to yield a really superb example of the species defined by a 2.5-cm size – an association that rivals the dramatic color contrast of popular combinations like black neptunite on white natrolite or bluish-green microline (amazonite) and smoky quartz. Imagine translucent, sculptural peach sérandite crystals juxtaposed with large black spears of aegerine! Such a specimen goes beyond the moniker of ‘thumbnail’ to become extreme nature you can hold in your hand. Here are aesthetics and significance that, generally speaking, do not exist in larger specimens.

Many species and associations likewise offer equally artistic form in small size, and the many other pragmatic advantages to thumbnails are truly compelling. Some might even argue that thumbnail collecting has more to offer than any other niche in the hobby. Great things do come in small packages – and for that reason connoisseur thumbnails have had and will undoubtedly continue to enjoy an important and endearing place in the collector market.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this article appeared in Lapis (Houran & Bleess, 2014), and we thank Dr. Stefan Weiß Tobias Weise and the entire Lapis editorial board for their permission to reproduce material. Appreciation also goes to Wendell Wilson, the Mineralogical Record and the many collectors who kindly contributed photographs or allowed specimens to be photographed by Joe Budd.

References

Bancroft, P. (1984). Gem & Crystal Treasures. Western Enterprises: Riverside, CA.

Chesterman, C. W. (1978). The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Rocks and Minerals.  Alfred A. Knopf: New York.

Cooper, M. P. (2010). Introduction. In The Lindsay Greenback Collection: Classic Minerals of Northern England (pp. 5-6). Supplement to the Mineralogical Record. Tucson, AZ: Mineralogical Record.

Currier, R. (2008). About mineral collecting: Part 1 of 5. Mineralogical Record, 39, 305-313.

Currier, R. (2009a). About mineral collecting: Part 3 of 5. Mineralogical Record, 40, 49-59.

Currier, R. (2009b). About mineral collecting: Part 5 of 5. Mineralogical Record, 40, 193-202.

Dunn, P. J., & Francis, C. A. (1990). Specialization in mineral collecting. Mineralogical Record, 21, 511-513.

Guestello, S. J., Peressini, A. F., & Bond, R. W. (2011). Orbital decomposition for ill-behaved event sequences: Transients and superordinate structures. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 15, 465-476.

Halpern, J. (2005). Criteria for selecting crystallized mineral specimens for a display collection. Mineralogical Record, 36, 195-198.

Houran, J. (2013).  Connoisseur mineral collecting. Invited presentation at the Seventh Hong Kong Mineral Fair, April 27-28. The Mineralogy Society of Hong Kong: Hong Kong University.

Houran, J. (2014). Thumbnail specimens: Little treasures – collecting and competing. Presentation at the 4th Annual Dallas Mineral Collecting Symposium, August 22-23. Cox School of Business: Southern Methodist University.

Houran, J., & Bleess, J. (2014). Thumbnail Collecting – eine Philosophie des Sammelns. Lapis, 39, 12-28.

Huang, M., Bridge, H., Kemp, M. J., & Parker, A. J. (2011). Human cortical activity evoked by the assignment of authenticity when viewing works of art. Frontiers of Human Neuroscience, 5, article 134, 1-9.

Lininger, J. L. (1993). Portrait gallery: Charles H. Pennypacker (1845-1911). Matrix, 3 (1), 9-11.

Liu, G., Lavinsky, R. M., Meieran, E. S., Schmitt, H. H., Moore, T. P., & Wilson, W. E. (2013). Crystalline Treasures: The mineral heritage of China. Supplement to the Mineralogical Record. Tucson, AZ: Mineralogical Record.

Moore, T. P. (2002). Collector profile: Ralph Clark. Mineralogical Record, 33, 181-186.

Moore, T. P. (2010). What’s new: Tucson Show 2010. Mineralogical Record, 41, 275-294.

Moore, T. P. (2013a). What’s new: Munich Show 2012. Mineralogical Record, 44, 91-101.

Moore, T. P. (2013b). What’s new: Tucson Show 2013. Mineralogical Record, 44, 329-350.

Moore, T. P. (2016). What’s new: Denver Show 2016. Mineralogical Record, 48, 125-138.

Moore, T. P., & Lavinsky, R. (2013). In western eyes: How western museums and collectors judge mineral specimens. In Crystalline Treasures: The Mineral Heritage of China (pp. 25-28). Supplement to the Mineralogical Record. Tucson, AZ: Mineralogical Record.

Pardieu, V., Dubinksky, E. V., Sangsawong, S., & Chauviré, B. (2012). News from research: Sapphire rush near Kataragama, Sri Lanka (February-March 2012). Bangkok, Thailand: Gemological Institute of America. 82 p.

Praszkier, T. (2012). Collector interview: Wendell Wilson (USA). Minerals: The Collector’s Newspaper, issue 4, 13-18.

Robinson, S. (1999). Some observations (and tips) on exhibiting. Rocks & Minerals, 74, 263-265.

Smale, S. (2006). The Smale Collection: Beauty in Natural Crystals. Lithographie, LLC: Denver.

Staebler, G. (Ed.) (2010). The Jim & Dawn Minette Collection.  Lithographie: Denver, CO.

Starkey, R. (2012). The good, the bad and the ugly: Museum displays – why do we keep making the same mistakes? Poster (#PS4-P07) presented at the IMA 7th International Conference on Mineralogy and Museums, August 27–29. Dresden: Deutsches Hygiene Museum.

Thompson, W. (2007) Ikons: Classic and Contemporary Masterpieces. Supplement to the Mineralogical Record. Tucson, AZ: Mineralogical Record.

Vogt, S. & Magnussen, S. (2007). Expertise in pictorial perception: Eye-movement patterns and visual memory in artists and laymen. Perception, 36, 91-100.

Voss, R. F., & Clark, J. (1978). 1/f Noise in music: music from 1/f noise. Journal of the Acoustic Society. 63, 362-371.

White, J. S. (2008) Herbert P. Obodda: dealer, gentleman, and collector extraordinaire. Mineralogical Record, 39, 315-330.

Wilson, W. E. (1990). Connoisseurship in minerals: science, beauty and history. Mineralogical Record, 21, 7-12.

Wilson, W. E. (1994). The History of Mineral Collecting, 1530-1799. Published as Mineralogical Record, 25(6), 1-243.

Wilson, W. E. (2006). Editorial: The Philadelphia sale. Mineralogical Record, 37, 498-499.

Wilson, W. E. (2008). The American minerals treasure exhibition, Tucson Gem and Mineral Show 2008. Mineralogical Record, 39, 171-222.

Wilson, W.E. (2013). Editorial: the best. Mineralogical Record, 44, 476.

Wilson, W. E. (2014). The opening of the Mim Mineral Museum in Beirut, Lebanon. Mineralogical Record, 45, 61-83.

Wilson, W. E. (2015). More from the Mim Mineral Museum, Beirut, Lebanon. Mineralogical Record, 46, 755-763.

Wilson, W. E., Bartsch, J. A., & Mauthner, M. (2004). Masterpieces of the Mineral World. Harry N. Abrams: New York.

Wilson, W. E., & Houran, J. (2012). The elegant world of thumbnail minerals. Mineralogical Record, 43, 219-262.