Quick Links : Mindat手册 The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Mindat Newsletter [Free Download]

主页关于 Mindat Mindat手册 Mindat的历史版权 Who We Are 联系我们于 Mindat.org刊登广告

捐赠给 Mindat Corporate Sponsorship 赞助板页已赞助的板页在 Mindat刊登广告的广告商于 Mindat.org刊登广告

Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

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

Mindat手册添加新照片 Rate Photos 产区编辑报告 Coordinate Completion Report 添加词汇表项目

Mining Companies 统计会员列表 Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations 矿物展及活动 The Mindat目录表设备设置 The Mineral Quiz

照片搜索 Photo Galleries Search by Color 今天最新的照片昨天最新的照片用户照片相集过去每日精选照片相集 Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Field CollectingStrickland Quarry, Portland, Connecticut

15th Jun 2011 22:37 UTCMickey Marks

When I recently posted a photo of a quartz specimen from the Strickland Quarry in Portland, Connecticut, three choices came up for the locality. All three describe the same locality, but with some minor differences in nomenclature for the locality. I feel that the three citations should be combined into just one, "Strickland Quarry, Collins Hill, Portland, Connecticut", to avoid confusion. Other historical names such as "Schoonmaker "could be included in parentheses. Could whoever makes these decisions look into this subject, please.

16th Jun 2011 04:53 UTCSam Cordero, Jr.

Hello Mickey, I'm pretty sure this topic was talked about not to long ago. If you know how to search for old Topics you might find the thread. If I remember correctly ( ? ) the issue was that they were all bunched up into 1 Strickland. Therefore a decision was made to divide them because they were technically different places. I'm not sure though. Good luck.

16th Jun 2011 13:36 UTCHarold Moritz 🌟 Expert

Mickey:

As stated in the text I wrote for each locality, there were two separate quarries/mines working the same pegmatite. The Strickland or Eureka quarry worked the southern part as an open quarry, and later as an underground mine. The much smaller and shorter-live Cramer or Schoonmaker mine worked the northern part of the pegmatite. Most specimens came from the Strickland quarry, but if they were collected from the northernmost dump, they came from the Schoonmaker mine. I have found that few collectors realized this and typically labeled everything "Strickland quarry". But they are different localities in the heirarchy of mindat databasing - Schoonmaker mine is not the same place as the Strickland Quarry. But they are combined under the next mindat level up - "Strickland pegmatite". If you select the "Strickland pegmatite" level, all minerals and specimen photos from both the Strickland quarry and the Schoonmaker mine will appear there, as well as specimen photos only posted at this level. So if your specimen label says "Strickland quarry", then enter it under the "Strickland quarry" locality page. If you are not sure if it came from the quarry or the more northern mine - or dont care - then enter it under the combined "Strickland pegmatite" locality page.

It may be worth stating that a photo can be posted to any heirarchical level in mindat, they do not have to be put in at the lowest, most specific level. You could just as easily enter a photo at the "Collins Hill" level, the "Portland" level, etc. on up, depending on the most specific level of information you have for a specimen. But it can only be posted to one level, so you should post it at the lowest level possible.

Hope that helps!

Harold

24th Jun 2011 01:07 UTCMIchael Sharpe

Sadly Strickland has been underneath a golf course since sometime in the early/mid 90s

24th Jun 2011 05:23 UTCSam Cordero, Jr.

I wish I could hit the PowerBall for a few hundred million, then flip that to a Billiiiiiooonn $$$$. Then I would buy the golf course, and open it up. It would be a mineralogical treasure trove. There still have to be more specimens there, perhaps some new species that were never found have survived. Even more unfortunate was the decision to pave roads, and build houses on the pegmatite veins that were brethren to Strickland. Little did they know they were building on a rare piece of property that should have been preserved for it's scientific value. These coordinates are special in comparison to others on this globe.

Oh well. Guess I'll just wait for that PowerBall ticket.

24th Jun 2011 13:23 UTCWayne Corwin

Play golf there , , 40 or 50 good strokes in one spot might get you to the "Pay Layer"

You may not win the golf game , , , but who cares ? ;)

Just remember to 'replace your divot'

KOR

Wayne

2nd Jul 2011 17:54 UTCRob (The Rock Hunter) Shepard

I go up there on major holidays when the gold course is closed, there are still two dumps that exist. One is on the left side of the pit and it has been build into the landscape of the course. The other one is down the hill in the woods toward the bottom of the gold course; I still find good Aqua Marines and a few other special pieces from time to time. Every once in awhile I find good stuff around the quarry itself on the lower level. Good Luck Hunting

Rob

20th Jun 2012 14:42 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

I just cleaned up this locality file a bit and added data from MRDS, including some new, rather obscure, references. The new data include ore body info & geological context.

20th Jun 2012 15:15 UTCHarold Moritz 🌟 Expert

Nice additions Chet, thanks. One small point of clarification, I would modify one paragraph to read:

"Located in the Middletown Pegmatite District comprising a swarm of Permian (~260 mya) pegmatite dikes; locally in a north-trending zone, mostly in the Ordovician Collins Hill Formation; but dikes are also present in eastward adjacent Ordovician Glastonbury Gneiss and westward adjacent Ordovician Middletown Formation."

This puts the place in greater context and is consistent with published map formation names and ages. Various references put the age of the pegmatites, based on several methods, at about 260 mya (mid Permian).

25th Jun 2012 02:24 UTCHarold Moritz 🌟 Expert

Chet:

I just noticed you included the combined "Strickland-Cramer" name as synonyms for the Strickland Quarry. This is incorrect, the two always were separate physical and operational entities with different owners, too. USGS may want to lump them together in their database, but they are only related at the next level up - they both worked the Strickland pegmatite. So I included the combined "Strickland-Cramer" name as synonyms for the Strickland pegmatite. Personally I find the USGS-MRDS database (for Connecticut at least) to be rife with wrong positions, errors and duplications (in different places) that the only way to know any given place is correct is to go to the original source documents.

25th Jun 2012 14:30 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

Harold,

Please change the geological setting paragraph as per your suggestion. It is much better.

Regarding the names, if the alternate is in the literature, it has to be listed among the alternate names in Mindat. We may not like it since it is then "impure" but that's the way it is. There are numerous examples of similar abberations in MRDS and elsewhere (e.g.: Mad Ox Mine = Maddock Mine). Many of these are due to misspellings from a time when few folks were truly literate.

MRDS is rife with errors of all types and significance. Believe me, it is often frustrating to unscramble what is presented!

Chet

25th Jun 2012 14:32 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

25th Jun 2012 15:00 UTCHarold Moritz 🌟 Expert

Hi Chet:

Understood, appreciate the feedback. No problem with including the names, at least at some level in the hierarchy.

I think the problem with MRDS is lack of quality control review of the product by someone knowledgeable. Now we have a database that has been overlayed onto Google maps, and thus taken as gospel by many because it is convenient, that is so full of garbage I have to tell club members not to use it lest they end up trespassing in search of a phantom locality (usually on the wrong geology), and wasting their time and mine, pissing off property owners, etc. I tell them to use mindat coordinates, at least for Conn., because I have "vetted" them (at least the ones I've edited so far) and mostly been to them and based my coordinates on topo maps and/or aerial photos so am positive they are correct. Much in MRDS is correct, but just as much is wrong and well, right or wrong there's no way to tell from the database, without going to the source references (which I use instead).

Fritz

25th Jun 2012 15:10 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

Harold,

As I am doing California (and Arizona), I look at the topo map and position of the cursor for the stated coordinates. There should be a mine/shaft/adit symbol at/near the location. If not, checking the satellite photo may reveal mining scars or dumps. I do find many MRDS coordinates right on, but way too many more way off, or conflicting between 2 or 3 sets of coordinates provided in 2 or more MRDS files. I have a few other contributors working on California who are providing accurate coordinates which they or their acquaintances have acquired with modern GPS devices. Our little collecting group has done liewise in past years. It doesn't get any better than that! If you have any known accurate coordinates for Connecticut, or any other state, please feel free to substitute them for the coordinates of record, BUT, reference the old coordinates in the locality description block, as well an explanation of the new coordinates:

Coordinates obtained by Harold Moritz on 6/24/2012, using a Garmin model _______ device. Taken at the quarry entrance (mine adit portal, etc.). The coordinates of record presented in MRDS were: ____________________________. If you don't want your name used to link you to a location, don't use it.

25th Jun 2012 15:59 UTCHarold Moritz 🌟 Expert

Well, we're getting off topic here, but I dont use a field GPS, I have seamless topo software that gives lat long wherever you put the cursor. I know where the localities are on the topo using personal knowledge, references, aerial photos, and/or the topo themselves. If I dont know, I dont add them. I've field verified this method several times to the precision allowed on mindat with someone who does have a GPS. I've already done dozens of places without the text you suggest, many are private property so I wont add my name, but will state generically how the coordinates were obtained going forward. So far I dont think too many Conn. places have the MRDS coordinates in there as the "record" (I assume the survey part would be filled in, never seen that, most Conn localities I havent yet contributed to dont have any coordinates) and frankly I dont even want to look the MRDS coordinates up. Personally I think mindat should have a blanket policy not to use MRDS as it is too unreliable and we all end up wasting time have to re-edit/verify them, or if they are used state so and include a disclaimer that it could be miles off.

5th Jul 2012 02:52 UTCleigh voytek

ON A HOT HUMID DAY IN 1976 I TOOK A BREAK FROM COLLECTING TO TAKE A SWIM. AT STRICKLAND. I JUMPED FROM THE TOP OF THE LEDGE ,ABOUT 50 FT UP, AND SEVERELY DISLOCATED MY RT SHOULDER.I WAS EMPLOYED AT THE TIME BY ST VINCENTS EMERGENCY RM IN BRIDGEPORT I AND FOOLISHLY DECIDED TO HAVE MY FRIENDS DRIVE ME THERE IN MY VAN.(POOR YOUNG MANS MOTEL) WHEN THEY RAN OUT OF ICE FOR MY SHOULDER THEY CRACKED SOME BUDS AND POURED THEM ON THE INJURY AND IN MY MOUTH. SO THERE I WAS ,SOAKED IN BEER,MY SHOULDER WHERE MY CLAVICLE SHOULD BE , IN A WHEELCHAIR.SURROUNDED BY MY LONG HAIRED PEEPS AND OUR (HOT) SCANTILY CLAD GIRLFRIENDS EXPLAINING TO MY BOSS SISTER MARILYN (DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY) WHY I CANT SWIM AT THE YMCA LIKE NORMAL PEOPLE.............OH TO BE 19 AGAIN!

Go to top of page