Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryGeologic Time
搜索矿物的性质搜索矿物的化学Advanced Locality Search随意显示任何一 种矿物Random Locality使用minID搜索邻近产地Search Articles搜索词汇表更多搜索选项
╳Discussions
💬 Home🔎 Search📅 LatestGroups
EducationOpen discussion area.Fakes & FraudsOpen discussion area.Field CollectingOpen discussion area.FossilsOpen discussion area.Gems and GemologyOpen discussion area.GeneralOpen discussion area.How to ContributeOpen discussion area.Identity HelpOpen discussion area.Improving Mindat.orgOpen discussion area.LocalitiesOpen discussion area.Lost and Stolen SpecimensOpen discussion area.MarketplaceOpen discussion area.MeteoritesOpen discussion area.Mindat ProductsOpen discussion area.Mineral ExchangesOpen discussion area.Mineral PhotographyOpen discussion area.Mineral ShowsOpen discussion area.Mineralogical ClassificationOpen discussion area.Mineralogy CourseOpen discussion area.MineralsOpen discussion area.Minerals and MuseumsOpen discussion area.PhotosOpen discussion area.Techniques for CollectorsOpen discussion area.The Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryOpen discussion area.UV MineralsOpen discussion area.Recent Images in Discussions
PhotosMinehillite?
1st May 2012 04:10 UTCPeter Chin Expert
1st May 2012 20:47 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager
2nd May 2012 00:16 UTCPeter Chin Expert
The white platy mineral in question, based on the photo image and reported lack of fluorescent response, is likely johannsenite, although non-fluorescent prehnite could also be a possibility. Both Prehnite and Johannsenite from Franklin can occur as platy white aggregates, specimens of both can be found in the Franklin Mineral Museum. Prehnite is generally but not always fluorescent. The assemblage shown in the photo is axinite/garnet(andradite)/hancockite/hendricksite(brown plate)/willemite, is a known assemblage for johannsenite and prehnite. Modris, A rare species for Franklin and Nice specimen!
2nd May 2012 02:25 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert
Thanks for the input. Johannsennite is probably the last thing I expected. - not that I have ever seen any. Despite Van's accolade - I'm really NOT very knowledgeable about Franklin and Sterling at all. (In fact, I'm posting some of this stuff in the sneaky hope that somebody will tell me what it really is. Seems to be working :-) )
For the time being, I think I'll leave it as is - but with a caveat - just to see if anybody else chimes in. After I have thought about it- or heard any other opinions - it I will either label it as johannsenite or put it in my private gallery as unidentified.
Regarding the matrix, there is indeed some hendricksite (not very much), andradite, hancockite (not much), axinite (maybe - it doesn't fluoresce much at all) and willemite (only a couple of small spots). The major UV response - to my eyes - seems to be dingy pale blue white with some red areas (as you might expect for margarosanite except much weaker and washed out - no saturation). And - as far as I can tell, this fluorescence is not coming from the stuff I was calling minehillite.
Maybe I'll make a macro shot of the specimen.
2nd May 2012 02:45 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert
Actually - it seems I have some johannsenite from the Iron Cap mine. In fact I even posted a photo
It sure doesn't look anything like the platy stuff In my "minehillite" photo. But if you say that the Franklin Museum has johannsenite that looks like my "minehillite" - well what do I know? I'm going to have to go down and take a look. Still - it seems rather surprising.
Modris
2nd May 2012 03:30 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.
Chet
2nd May 2012 04:20 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert
Thanks for the input. I have now added a macro shot of the entire specimen . Perphaps that will provide a more definitive clue.
I'm going to add another photo later of a different specimen which has platy areas similar to (but not quite the same as) the first one that I posted.
This stuff too was sold as margarosanite but seems to fluoresce more violet than blue (and not all that strong). It is actually this stuff that led me to suspect minehillite.
But the matrix of this second specimen seems even more "politically incorrect" for minehillite. It's just ordinary calcite with a band of willemite and garnet grains in which there is a hendricksite looking mica that has apparently altered to the pearly colorless stuff that exhibits the blue/violet SW response.. (In some cases the pearly stuff seems to be a rim around the mica.)
Modris
2nd May 2012 05:07 UTCSteven Kuitems Expert
Let me know what you observe.
Steve.
2nd May 2012 05:50 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert
Thanks for responding.
As far as I can tell, neither the stuff in my original "minehillite" post nor on the other specimen has any radial or fibrous structure. They both look micaceous/platy. (The stuff in the original post looks a bit "leathery". Hard to describe. Maybe I need another photo that emphasises the texture rather than the luster/reflectivity.)
In any case I have now posted (as a private gallery UK) a sample of the second mineral
The stuff is hard to photograph so I don't know if you will be able to tell very much. But this one does fluoresce.
Modris
2nd May 2012 15:43 UTCPeter Chin Expert
Thanks for the image of the entire specimen. The minehillite assemblage is very distinctive,The matrix is microcline and accessory minerals, present but necessarily in every specimen, are margarosanite, wollastonite (for many years misidentified as "pectolite" until Fred Parker proved otherwise), grossular, allanite, native lead, vesuvianite, diopside etc. A complex mess! From what can be ascertained from the image, your specimen appears to be typical hydrothermally altered "Parker Shaft" GOOP - hancockite, axinite, garnet, hendricksite. Most of these minerals have a partially "bleached" look to them. I don't see in your image of the specimen, the type of matrix I would expect to see for Minehillite. I don't think I have seen hancockite in the minehillite assemblage; perhaps, Steve or Van may know of one? The "minehillite" plates of your specimen are beginning to look more like prehnite.
In the 1960's minehillite specimens were offered by miners and dealers as a cheap ("lousy")margarosanite, or for its "pectolite" content and for those few "lucky" collectors in need, as "barylite" in light of it's weak violet fl. For a while it was relatively abundant and inexpensive. I guess good things don't last.
Steve,
Thanks for your input and I would like to mention that there are specimens of Johannsenite in which the mineral appears as plates without a radial morphology. It also appears in an entirely different assemblage, epitaxially on rhodonite crystals.
Peter
2nd May 2012 16:23 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert
Thank you very much for the information. It's quite difficult to make sense of the - as you put it - "GOOP". You can read Dunn and Palache all you want but it is really input from experienced collectors like you, Steve and Chet that helps.
I'm going to stew on this for a few more days before I decide whether to call it prehnite or just leave it as UK.
Any thoughts on the platy stuff in the second - very different - specimen?
Modris
2nd May 2012 17:18 UTCPeter Chin Expert
2nd May 2012 17:23 UTCSteven Kuitems Expert
Steve.
2nd May 2012 18:33 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert
Yes, there is a blue/violet response SW that appears to be confined to just the hendricksite that has turned colorless. The UV response is not very strong but it's clearly noticeable (even with the very strong competing willemite and calcite). In fact, that's how I find the altered hendricksite areas too look at under the scope.
Thanks again - Modris
2nd May 2012 19:26 UTCPeter Chin Expert
2nd May 2012 19:54 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert
Yes - I had though of "caswellite". But the specimen of "caswellite" that I have doesn't really look similar under the scope. Also, it doesn't fluoresce at all (if I recall - perhaps worth another look).
Modris
2nd May 2012 23:46 UTCJeff Weissman Expert
3rd May 2012 00:02 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert
That's remarkable - whatever it is.
Modris
3rd May 2012 00:07 UTCJohn Magnasco Manager
3rd May 2012 00:28 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert
I don't think mooreite has been found at Franklin - only at Sterling Hill. Both of the specimens I posted are from Franklin. In any case, they don't look like mooreite under the scope.
Jeff,
I just remembered that Dunn states that vesuvianite is sometimes a component of "caswellite". So maybe you have an unusual form of the latter. The caswellite (grossular) I have doesn't look like your photo but (as we're being reminded) photos can be deceiving.
Modris
3rd May 2012 00:58 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.
3rd May 2012 02:29 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert
I think I'm about to give up on both of these specimens. The "minehillite" might well be prehnite but I'm not comfortable labeling it as such.
Thanks for all the input. I learned a lot of useful stuff - but not enough to make a definitive call for either specimen.
I'll take care of the changes tomorrow.
Modris
3rd May 2012 12:29 UTCPeter Chin Expert
It could be vesuvianite but I think it is more likely grossular pseudomorph after hendricksite or phlogopite. Grossular is quite common and pervasive in the type of assemblage ("Parker Shaft") shown in Modris' photo whereas the vesuvianite pseudomorph in the photo in your message is quite rare and may have been a one time find (perhaps, Chet can confirm this).
3rd May 2012 15:52 UTCJeff Weissman Expert
Analysis, of course, is needed
regards, Jeff
3rd May 2012 17:27 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert
What I see is that the platy stuff on both specimens is remarkably similar - despite one being "Parker GOOP" and the other being really very ordinary calcite with a band (1-2 cm) of garnet/willemite/mica running through it. In both cases there is relict hendricksite (or phlogopite). (The sample shown in the "minehillite" photo is actually atypical in that almost no relict mica is visible.) The main difference between these two replacements is that one fluoresces while the other does not.
So the bottom line seems to be that both of the specimens are "caswellite like" - i.e. NOT minehillite, johannsenite or prehnite.
But they don't look like "genuine" caswellite either. According to Dun (p. 424), "Mica (presumably phlogopite) is replaced by blue vesuvianite in some specimens, and some caswellite is in part vesuvianite."
Interestingly, some of the mica on the second of my specimens has turned green (another vesuvianite color) instead of colorless.
To determine what the stuff really is - grossular, vesuvianite or something else entirely - would, I think, require some pretty rigorous anaylsis - clearly not worth the effort.
So what to do with the "minehillite" photo? I think this is one of those case where a photo showing what a mineral doesn't look like can be almost as useful as one that does show what it looks like. Specifically my "minehillite" photo shows what minehillite, johannsenite and prehnite do not look like at Franklin.
But I don't think I can post it as "caswellite" (i.e. grossular). The only thing I can think of is to post it as hendricksite. I think it's fairly clear that there is hendricksite on the specimen and some of the colorless platy areas do show relict hendricksite.
Or is this "much ado about nothing"? Opinions? Chet gets three votes :-)
Modris
6th May 2012 01:49 UTCPaul Shizume
版权所有© mindat.org1993年至2024年,除了规定的地方。 Mindat.org全赖于全球数千个以上成员和支持者们的参与。
隐私政策 - 条款和条款细则 - 联络我们 - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: 2024.5.4 12:58:58
隐私政策 - 条款和条款细则 - 联络我们 - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: 2024.5.4 12:58:58