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

PhotosGreen is probably not malachite

15th Feb 2023 20:34 UTCPeter Andersen

Azurite, Arsentsumebite

Tsumeb Mine (Ongopolo Mine), Tsumeb, Oshikoto Region, Namibia

The green mineral with the azurite and cerussite is not like any malachite I have ever seen and does look more like being conichalcite (which is mentioned in the description as being an alternative possibility). The problem is that conichalcite is a species that has not been recorded from this deposit and surely would have been as it has been very well studied. I cannot suggest an alternative possibility that the green mineral would be but someone else may know.

15th Feb 2023 21:06 UTCRobert Nowakowski

Maybe dioptase

Bob

15th Feb 2023 22:37 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager

I would have considered it to be possibly Duftite

But then are we sure its Arizona? - looks a lot like Tsumeb material .. just saying

16th Feb 2023 01:51 UTCJohn M Stolz Expert

Lavinsky notes that it could also be conichalcite, with the more olive green duftite. Annabergite might be another possibility, but doesn't fit the mine description. Plus color is a notoriously unreliable.

16th Feb 2023 03:59 UTCDan Polhemus

I have about 100 specimens of Tiger material in my collection, and this just does not look right for that locality. Instead, the azurite crystals appear to be flanked by a couple of cupric arsenate species, and that is absolutely not typical of Tiger, which is a relatively arsenic-poor deposit. The brighter green mineral looks very much like tsumebite, and the pistachio green mineral resembles chenevixite, although as noted color alone is not an adequate basis for identification here. I would concur with Keith that this might be a mislabelled Tsumeb specimen. I very much doubt that it came from Tiger.

16th Feb 2023 07:23 UTCPeter Andersen

When I first saw this photo my immediate thought that this was actually from Tsumeb with the brighter green mineral being tsumebite, which is a typical association of azurite from that locality. Conichalcite has not been found at Tiger and even if the brighter green mineral is that species it is also found at Tsumeb as well and in numerous associations with other species and that would also confirm that this specimen is from that locality. I did not voice my concern that it could be an incorrect locality designation because the late Kay Robertson was very much like myself in that she was a locality suite collector and surely would have noted that the locality was wrong with this specimen. Unfortunately there is no record as to whom she obtained this specimen from. The other thing that points that this specimen is more than likely actually from Tsumeb is that when you get all the azurite photos from the Mammoth-Saint Anthony Mine onto the one page as a collage this photo stands out as being completely different to all the others that do have a very similar appearance to each other. It will be up to the Mindat managers as to whether this photo gets moved to the Tsumeb page where it belongs. The bottom line there appears to be no malachite t all associated with the azurite.

16th Feb 2023 07:41 UTCPeter Andersen

I have just done a search of Tsumeb azurite photos with associated tsumebite and arsentsumebite using the filter system and the first photo matches this one with the green being labelled as being arsentsumebite and later on the tsumebite association photos matches the lighter greenish yellow. Therefore I assume that this proves that this azurite photo is definitely from tsumeb and in all likelyhood the two arsenate looking species are in fact arsentsumebite and tsumebeite.

16th Feb 2023 16:36 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

My first thought was also Tsumeb ...

16th Feb 2023 16:45 UTCLittle Big

Not the first time such a "mistake" from IRocks and not the last

16th Feb 2023 16:50 UTCRobert Nowakowski

That is an ignorant statement. When you compare mistakes to the volume of photographs irocks has contributed, there are relatively few mistakes.

Bob

16th Feb 2023 17:23 UTCLittle Big

I thought that these are photos of a product for which someone wants to get money. In this case, it is wrong to justify periodic errors by quantity. But maybe I was wrong and then I apologize

17th Feb 2023 06:39 UTCJohn M Stolz Expert

Something about your post and self-satisfied proclamation of IRock's "mistake" jogged my memory. https://www.mindat.org/mesg-610476.html

You really seem to have a chip--or maybe an iRock---on your shoulder.

17th Feb 2023 18:27 UTCDan Polhemus

Returning to the question at hand, the consensus among the folks who have examined this photo critically is that the specimen involved is probably not from the locality indicated, and that the guesses as to the identity of the green minerals associated with the azurite are incorrect. Other photos with these sorts of problems are usually moved back to user only status and out of the public galleries. It will be interesting to see what the site managers decide to do with this one.

17th Feb 2023 21:16 UTCJohn M Stolz Expert

Sometimes the easiest way to clear up an issue is to contact the source. So I did. Rob confirmed that the piece is in fact from Tsumeb, based on analysis of the green stuff as arsentsumebite. See https://www.irocks.com/minerals/specimen/46165

17th Feb 2023 21:35 UTCDan Polhemus

Good to know, and also goes to show that folks on this site are pretty astute when it comes to assessing where a specimen might have come from, even if only on the basis of photographic evidence. Presumably the caption will be fixed to reflect the new information.

18th Feb 2023 00:43 UTCJohn M Stolz Expert

That's for sure--it's pretty amazing actually

17th Feb 2023 23:08 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager

Should now all be fixed

18th Feb 2023 16:47 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Captions also fixed.

Go to top of page