FrOg On-Line #1998-06

>From  Sat Aug 29 15:48:43 1998
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 03:45:32 -0400
From: "Gary Grenier" <>
To: "Earl Verbeek" <>,
	"Earl Verbeek" <>,
	"Gary Grenier" <>,
	"George Elling" <>,
	"Jay Linninger" <>,
	"Jim Chenard" <>,
	"John Jaszczak" <>,
	"Mark Leger" <>,
	"Pete Modreski" <>,
	"Peter Chin" <>,
	"Steve Misiur" <>,
	"Tema Hecht" <>,
	"Van King" <>,
	"William C. Mattison" <>,
	"Dick Bostwick" <>,
	"" <>,
	"Earl Verbeek" <>
CC: "" <>
Subject: FrOg #6

Welcome to the FrOg #6 (Franklin-Ogdensburg) News Group

Well, here is another of the series of Franklin and Ogdensburg "Chat"
Group e-mails.  As Don Newsome mentions in his survey response, chat
groups usually have live chat or real-time keyboard message exchanges.
The FrOg is really a "news group" that may eventually become a chat
group.  So, until we actually "chat" the name is FrOg News Group.

Judging from the responses to the FrOg #5 Questionnaire and FrOg #4
"monster" issue some topics are hotter than others are.  I will pursue
the hot ones leaving the colder topics to another day.  However, if one
of the "missed" topics interests you, by all means speak up?

The topics of interest include "The List", Charlesite, Collecting at the
Passaic and Noble - A First Hand account, a reader survey, and other
items of interest (hopefully).  So, read on?

For those of you following the FrOg issue numbers; FrOg #5 that
contained a Questionnaire quickly followed FrOg #4, which contained
quite a bit about digital close-up photography.


The Franklin and Sterling Hill Mineral Species List

It seems that when I asked the questions about the rather inexplicable
(to me) changes in the list I finally touched on a subject that
engenders discussion.  So to further the dialog I am repeating Dick
Bostwick's original response that was sent to all FrOg members and am
including additional commentary.

Subject: THE LIST
Dick Bostwick wrote:
This is a response to Gary Grenier's comments in FrOg #4 about the
"Franklin & Sterling Hill Mineral List," or simply The List.

The most widely available version of The List is that which appeared in
Vol. 3 of Dunn's monograph, pp. 322-323. I'm not sure whether this was
printed in late 1995 or early 1996; sorry.   This List also appears in
Vol. 5 of the monograph and in Dunn's "The Story of Franklin and
Sterling Hill" (1997).  There are 349 species in this version.  The
single validated addition to The List since the publication of the
monograph is that of Monazite-(Ce), which was described in the article,
"Monazite-(Ce) from the Buckwheat Dolomite at Franklin, New Jersey," by
Lawrence Pitman and Gene Bearss, which appeared in the Mineralogical
Record, Vol. 27, No. 6 (Nov./Dec. 1996), and was reprinted in the 1997
Combined Issue of the Picking Table.

Thus The List can now be considered to have 350 species which have valid
IDs and are known to have come from the Franklin-Sterling Hill area.
The criteria for inclusion in The List are fairly simple and were
published in the Picking Table, Spring 1987, page 4, in an article
titled "The List:"

"Criteria for Additions or Changes to the List"

"The list of species from the Franklin and Sterling Hill area is now,
after over nine years of intensive investigation, complete and accurate.
Countless hours of research time have been expended to make this list
the extant document for the mineral species representation for this area
as defined.  To ensure that the integrity of the list is maintained, we
have established certain criteria for the addition of species to the

"a) That Mr. John L. Baum, curator of the Franklin Mineral Museum, must
be convinced that the specimen originated within the defined area.

"b) That Dr. Pete J. Dunn, mineralogist at the Smithsonian Institution,
must be convinced of the correct verification of the species, and must
approve all nomenclature.

"Species names or occurrences not meeting these criteria will not be
included in the formal list of species published annually in the program
of the Franklin-Sterling Mineral Exhibit and from time-to-time in the
Picking Table."

What follows are the issues Gary's comments raised with me, phrased as
questions.  I hope I haven't missed any, but comments are welcome.

1) Why aren't species such as povondraite, pyromorphite, smythite,
szaibelyite, etc. in The List?  Yes, these have been announced by the
discoverers, and subsequently sold, and are in local collections.  Yes,
Jenkins and Modreski and the Franklin Mineral Museum are generally
reputable sources of information.  However?it is up to the discoverers
of any species new to the Franklin-Sterling Hill area to submit their
evidence for verification to Baum and Dunn.  This has not happened.  The
onus for the absence of these species from the list lies with the

My own opinion is that someone should be keeping track of these shadowy
species as they emerge, so that there is some public record of what the
material is and who identified it and when it was distributed, where it
is preserved, and so on. The only one I have a sample of is the
"novacekite" discovered on the Buckwheat by Tony Den Uyl, optically
verified by John Cianciulli, and sold at the FOMS Swap & Sell in May,
1997.  (It fluoresced!)  However, to repeat, the reason why it and
smythite and povondraite have not been added to the list is that the
discoverers have not followed the published rules for adding species to
the list.  I don't think the fault lies with the rules; they seem simple

2) Why are there discrepancies in published Lists?   The List in the
monograph and The List published in the same time period in the Franklin
show program are (or should be) the same list, as kept by Baum and
Dunn.  Yes, The List often changes yearly, but since the publication of
Dunn's monograph it has changed only by the addition of monazite-(Ce).
Gary suggests there are  discrepancies between the monograph List and
the one in the 1997 Franklin show program;  I have not investigated
this, but I am aware that there were problems in the printing of that
program, and if that (1997 show) List is substantially different from
the monograph List, the show list has probably been reprinted by
accident from an earlier year..

3) What happened to the bastnaesite-group-mineral and the ferric-iron
analog of hematolite and the oyelite-like mineral, and other oddities,
which have appeared, on The List?  These and others which never quite
achieved full species status have now been relegated by Pete Dunn to the
category of "unnamed minerals," and you can read the descriptions for
seven of them in the monograph, on page 750-755, in a short chapter of
that name.  The oyelite-like mineral is now Mineral-B, the
bastnaesite-group mineral is Mineral-C, and the Fe+++-analog of
hematolite is Mineral-D.

4) Why are minerals dropped from the list?  Here I agree with Gary that
it would be nice to know why, but explaining this is not the business of
The List.  Evidently whatever specimens were investigated did not
satisfy the published criteria.  Yes, this is a topic worth following
up.  Any volunteers?

5) What about recent changes in nomenclature and organization of the
amphiboles and zeolites?  Yes, these will produce corresponding changes
in The List.  However, to establish the changes it is (at a minimum)
necessary to compare published analyses of F-SH minerals with the new
descriptions and nomenclature, to see where the old analyses and the new
classifications intersect. (It is rarely a case of just renaming a
mineral, as in the case of calcium larsenite becoming esperite.)  This
comparison is underway but not ready for publication.

6) Why isn't there a published chronicle of additions to and deletions
from The List, by year, based on the Franklin show programs?  A good
idea.  Any volunteers?


Additional Commentary on the LIST

Gary Grenier wrote:
I have studied the List and my notes regarding Dick's request that I put
together information relevant to the species not on the list that have
been either reported as verified or rumored to be verified.  Well, I am
not going to report rumor, so I am including, from my notes, that which
I believed at the time was a reliable source. In addition, I am
including the changes to the list that have not been sufficiently
explained in published FOMS format.  My source has been and will
continue to be the most current work available, Dr. Dunn's multi-volume

Not on the List as a Valid Species from Franklin or Sterling Hill

(MAGNESIOHASTINGSITE) No Longer a Valid Species from Franklin or
Sterling Hill
sodium calcium magnesium iron aluminosilicate hydroxide
Originally reported from Sterling Hill as medium to light green cleavage
masses found with quartz forming the matrix for powellite and uraninite
and having no fluorescence under UV.

(MELANTERITE) No Longer a Valid Species from Franklin or Sterling Hill
iron sulfate hydrate
Reported originally from Franklin and Sterling Hill and carried on the
List and found as a gray-white, greenish weathering product of pyrite
and marcasite and usually very unstable, powdering and crumbling to
collection of granular remains and having no fluorescence under UV

(SVABITE) No Longer a Valid Species from Franklin or Sterling Hill
calcium arsenate fluoride
Reported for decades from Franklin and recently from Sterling Hill from
the 340-foot level.  Found as gray-green to dark green vitreous,
subresinous masses that fluoresce moderately bright pale
yellowish-orange SW. Easily confused with other orange fluorescing
apatite minerals

Unnamed Minerals

Minerals in the Unnamed category were on previous lists, but were
removed to the Unnamed list by Dr. Dunn and require more scientific
study to resolve their true nature

Unnamed Mineral-B [from Dr. Dunn's monograph vol #5 pg. 687 list]
calcium borosilicate hydrate
Found at Franklin as pink to white radial acicular clusters which
fluoresce moderate medium violet and white SW/LW UV light and are found
in cavities and crystal intersections of manganaxinite.

Unnamed Mineral-C [from Dr. Dunn's monograph vol #5 pg. 687 list]
cerium lanthanum carbonate fluoride
Found at Franklin as dark brown granular masses found in coarse-grained,
pale green microcline and allanite, often in the reaction rims of

Unnamed Mineral-D [from Dr. Dunn's monograph vol #5 pg. 687 list]
manganese magnesium aluminum arsenate hydroxide
Found at Sterling Hill as reddish-brown platy masses to 2mm each with
assorted copper arsenates in vuggy ore and tight-packed tan masses and
found with alleghanyite and lean ore.

Verified but NOT on the List of Franklin and Sterling Hill Species

The verifications of these minerals have been reported but not yet

(POVONDRAITE) Verified but NOT on the List
Reported as verified by Dr. Jenkins of DuPont
Reported at Sterling Hill in calcite from the 180-foot level Gravity
Tram as long black "schorl-like" crystals and masses and having no
fluorescence under UV light. Some crystals have a pronounced radial
habit and are several inches long.  Easily confused with dravite and

(PYROMORPHITE) Verified but NOT on the List
Reported as verified by Dr. Jenkins of DuPont
Reported at Sterling Hill from the Passaic Pit galena find having been
found with galena, cerussite, anglesite, and altered scapolite as micro
white hexagonal elongated crystals and having no fluorescence under UV

(SMYTHITE) Verified but NOT on the List
Reported as verified by Dr. Modreski of USGS
Found at Sterling Hill as bronzy metallic films on franklinite crystals
from the 340-foot level and having no fluorescence under UV light.

(SZAIBELYITE) Verified but NOT on the List
Reported as verified by Dr. Jenkins of DuPont
Found at Sterling Hill in eroded sussexite-pyrochroite-rhodochrosite
pods in calcite and having no fluorescence under UV light.


Additional Commentary on the LIST

Dick shares his recollections and thoughts about species reported but
not yet published

Dick Bostwick wrote:
My knowledge is confined to:

"Novacekite," found on the Buckwheat Dump by Tony Den Uyl (sp?), optical
ID by John Cianciulli, sold at the 1997 FOMS Spring Swap & Sell by Tony
for (typically) $100 each.   Owned by Tony, me, Peter Chin (at the very
least).  Greenish-yellow coatings on weathered pyroxene (description
from memory), moderately weak uranium-green FL. About ten pieces?  I
don't know, but Tony would.

"Hydrocerussite," white coating found on a zincite xl specimen from
Franklin(?) in a collection in Colorado (whose?).  ID via (?) by Pete
Modreski.  Circa 1994-95 (?)  One specimen only, returned to the
Colorado collector.  I may, oops, have the species wrong, but I will
check with Peter as soon as I can get in touch with him.

"Svabite" from Sterling Hill, pale gray-green grains with moderate
orange FL SW, found in calcite with FL powellite, chabazite (?), and
wollastonite, from the great 340 level wollastonite find.  Analyzed via
(?) by Pete Modreski, early 1990s.  Sold by SHMC but not with "svabite"
label;  prices moderate but not many pieces found.  I have one measuring
about 6" for which I paid $75 or $100..

"Svabite" from Franklin, pale gray-green masses with hardystonite,
willemite, and reputed gold (?!) and/or copper, reputedly found on the
Trotter Dump by Jim Richard of Butler, N.J., and reputedly analyzed by
someone Jim knew at Princeton (?), by (?) method.  Prices high,
especially for pieces with gold; I saw one being sold by Andy Massey
which he priced at $1000.  I bought one for $350 and don't know whether
the tiny amount of metal in it is gold or copper, but that's not what I
bought it for.   Jim waved some strip charts at me but I never inspected
them closely or learned exactly who is supposed to have identified the
svabite," or how, or where.  I suppose some were sold by Jim and some by
Andy; I thought there were about six pieces but I really have no idea,
and there could have been many more. When was this?  1994?  1995?

In this connection I must say that I still do not understand why there
is abundant fluorapatite at F/SH but not its As-analog svabite, and
documented johnbaumite and turneaureite but not their P-analogs,
hydroxylapatite and chlorapatite.  It just doesn't make any damn sense.
PJD has no explanation, he just says that he analyzed hundreds of
specimens and that's what he found....

"Ferridravite" seems to have been reported by Phil Betancourt and sold
by the SHMC in the early 90s.  I don't know what it looks like. I assume
it's from SH but don't know for sure;  all I have is a few vague
recollections, but no specimens.

I would appreciate whatever similar information you can give me about
"povondraite" and the other minerals on your short list.

I am thinking about an article titled "Reported but not confirmed" or
some such. I think this information should be gotten out to collectors
just so they know the actual status of their material. One source of
trouble is that if we name the identifiers and vendors and so on, it
might reflect poorly on them, but at least the published information
would be accurate.

I propose that we start referring to these semi-identified minerals as
meta-species, and always putting them in quotes.


Subject:  Keeper of the List
Date:  26 Aug 1998 07:36:35 -0400
From: Peter.Chin@USPTO.GOV

I received a letter from PJ D last week announcing without explanation
that he is withdrawing from the duties as Keeper of the List.



Gary Grenier wrote:
I have been asked from time to time to visually identify mineral
specimens both daylight and fluorescent as has Dick Bostwick and many of
you.  We have done the best we can with what information we have been
able to gather from verified specimens and literature. However, Franklin
and Sterling Hill mineral specimens are more often granular mixtures
than crystalline making them extremely difficult to visually identify in
daylight or ultraviolet light.  One such fluorescent margarosanite
assemblage was recently given to me to examine and I offered the
following advice.

"As far as the pale blue response ID is concerned, once again I stress
that many, if not most, of the weakly fluorescent pale blue materials in
these assemblages are combinations of several species.  Many expert eyes
have looked at these pale blue-white responses and left them without an
ID, saying that "they are probably diffused margarosanite" in axinite or
hyalophane or celcian or a combination of three or more fine-grained
mixtures of species.  I stress the word "PROBABLY".

I can only use the following daylight examples to illuminate the
position you are reaching.  There are two species from Franklin:
schallerite and friedelite. Both have the same textural variations.
Both have the same coloration's. Both form in veins cutting the
identical ores.  Both are in the same family of species.  And both
require XRD or other analysis methods to differentiate the two.  They
can not be determined with certainty (except in two very limited
assemblages for schallerite) by visual means.

The same holds true for the manganpyrosmalite and friedelite found at
Sterling Hill.  To confuse matters more, both species are found in the
same hand specimen in veins that intermingle.  So, what does this mean?
You can only take visual identification so far and when you have hit the
limits you must recognize that you will need to try different methods to
determine the species identity.

Franklin and Sterling Hill species are among the most challenging in the
world to identify visually.  Sometimes being imaginative helps guide you
to research a given set of species, but that is only the start of your
journey to understanding the true nature of the specimen in your hand
not the end."

So, when your written references seem inconclusive and your visits to
your "expert" friends reveal only suggestions, it may be time to seek a
different authentication method.  The fluorescent responses that we see
should only be taken as diagnostic.  I say this because examples of
species misidentifications based upon fluorescent responses are not
uncommon.  For years it was assumed that all clinohedrite fluoresced
orange.  I stress the word all.  As a result, beautiful sherry colored
non-fluorescent clinohedrite crystals in hodgkinsonite and zincite
assemblages went overlooked and misidentified.

I could give many other examples, however the point is that when we
investigate Franklin and Sterling Hill minerals we must use diagnostic
tools to assemble a profile that permits the possible candidate list to
be reduced.  Furthermore, we must be prepared to look at what we may
consider, at first glance, to be an insignificant feature of the
specimen with the same zeal as the primary reason we collected the
specimen in the first place.

Sometimes finding all of the diagnostic tools and services is as
challenging as making the identification.  So remember, the journey to
the answer is as important as having the answer.


Gary Grenier wrote:

Hi Dick:
By the way I found something interesting in the "List".  I am curious as
to why Charlesite is still carried on the "Species unique to Franklin
and Sterling Hill" list?  It is my understanding that Charlesite was
found in the manganese mines of south Africa along with gageite and
other nifty Franklin-like species.  The Charlesite that I have been able
to collect from the Wessel mine (name may not be correct since it is by
memory only) was well-crystallized and bright yellow.  Fred Parker
provided the specimens and also has a representative in his collection,
as perhaps does Peter Chin.  I think the MinRec carried a story on these
deposits two years ago...hmmm might be a good story for the PT, like
cross referencing deposits with similar species... just an idea.

Dick Bostwick Responded:

All I can remember about this most interesting matter is something to
the effect that the South African material was judged to be ettringite
while the Franklin material was the new species charlesite.  If the ID
for the African material was changed (or if charlesite has been
confirmed there also) please see if you can locate the literature
reference in MR or wherever.  I have to start a file on "The List" for
reasons, which will be announced in the fall 98 PT.  Your efforts to
keep track of changes may be more important than you think.  Sorry, but
all I can do at present is drop stupid hints like this.
Cheers, Dick

Gary Grenier Reports in Response:
Subject: Re: Charlesite

>Is Charlesite unique to Franklin, New Jersey?
>Gary Grenier

Dana's New Mineralogy mentions only Franklin, but Cairncross/Dixon in
"Minerals of South Africa," published in '95, on p197 say:

"Charlesite has been identified as a colourless core in various
crystals from the Wessels and N'Chwaning II Mines. Many specimens, which
have been labelled as sturmanite, are most probably iron-rich or
manganese-rich charlesite."

On p245 they say of sturmanite:

"Most crystals consist of zones which can be identified as ettringite,
charlesite, or thaumasite, or mixtures of the three."

So, unless somebody has really looked into the stuff, I think it's safe
say that charlesite is not unique to Franklin.

Tim Jokela Jr


Gary Grenier Reports in Response:
Subject: Re: Charlesite
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:26:57 -0700

Is Charlesite unique to Franklin, New Jersey?

3 years ago, I wrote a few lines about bright yellow charlesite crystals
from N'Chwaning in the French mineralogical magazine Le Regne Mineral. I
can't say if the material i saw has been re-labelled since then ; but it
was really looking like charlesite.

Pierre-Nicolas Schwab
Assistant Managing Director, Le Regne Mineral French Mineralogical
magazine   E-mail :


Subject: Field Trip report and Specimen Discussion

Bill Mattison Wrote:

Hi Gary,
While at the University of Wyoming, I noticed many of my department's
weekly colloquia were researchers getting some preliminary review for
papers they were planning to submit for publication in professional
journals.  In other words, the colloquium was a way of getting input,
comments, and informal review before the paper enters the professional
journal's formal review process.

This is what I'm hoping to do with FrOg.  Before two write-ups are
submitted to the Picking Table, I'm hoping to get some input, etc. from
FrOg readers.  One discusses an unexpected result from a liquid nitrogen
experiment I did on a Franklin specimen with Dick Bostwick, the other
discusses a 5-color specimen collected this past May from the saddle
between the pits at Sterling Hill.  Since Dick was a co-experimenter on
the experiment, I'm sending that write-up to him for review before I
send it to you.  I am sending the 5-color specimen write-up to your home
e-mail address in a few minutes.


Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:24:15 GMT
From: "William C. Mattison" <>
Subject: A New Sterling Hill 6-Color Assemblage

An interesting 6-color fluorescent assemblage was uncovered during the
Passaic and Noble Pit collecting on May 23, 1998.  The specimen was
collected in the saddle area a few feet to the left of the path going
from the Passaic Pit to the Noble Pit.  Gerry McLoughlin did the hard
work, I did the lamping.  Two specimens of the assemblage were
collected.  I will describe my specimen only.

Some of the mineral identification was done by John Cianciulli using
visual inspection, both with and without a loupe, in both normal indoor
room lighting and under short wave ultraviolet light.  Gary Grenier
using a stereo microscope in addition to tools like John's did
additional mineral identification.

The specimen consists of Barite, Calcite, Fluorite, Scapolite (species
unidentified), Tourmaline (species unidentified), Wollastonite, an
unidentified Uranium mineral, and some other unidentified minerals.  The
specimen is irregular in shape, and measures about 12 x 6 x 3 cm.  Its
mass is about 172 g.

The matrix mineral is the undetermined Scapolite group mineral,
hereinafter referred to simply as Scapolite.  As observed in direct
sunlight, the Scapolite appears very pale to moderate-light gray in
color.  Under a short wave ultraviolet lamp, the Scapolite fluoresces a
moderate purplish red.  No fluorescence was apparent under the long wave
ultraviolet lamp.

On the specimen's surface, there is a tiny irregular cavity, about 3 mm.
across, with a tiny (about 2 mm.) flake of a greenish yellow mineral.
This greenish yellow flake is the unidentified Uranium mineral.  It
plainly registered on the radiation detector at the Franklin Mineral
Museum.  Under the short wave ultraviolet lamp, the Uranium mineral
fluoresces a bright yellowish green color.  The fluorescence under a
long wave ultraviolet lamp is a bright yellow-green color.  After
examining the specimen, John Cianciulli commented that the Uranium
mineral best matched metalodevite if one goes by the information in
Dunn's monograph, but that the mineral's fluorescence looked most like
that of novacekite.

Under magnification, the bright yellow mineral appears to be platy and
oriented in a parallel cluster stacked on edge.  As I held the specimen
the yellow platy crystals are attached to the right side of the vug
which also appear to contain a druse of colorless cubic fluorite
crystals. While the fluorite lines the cavity the yellow platy mineral
appears to be the last to have formed.

Surrounding the cavity is an inner halo, roughly oval in shape, about 6
mm. across its major axis, rather dark gray in color, and sub-metallic
in luster when viewed without magnification.  When viewed with about 3x
magnification (through a 50 mm., f1.8 camera lense), the halo material
appears nearly transparent, glassy, and gray, with the gray color
darkening with increasing distance from the cavity.  Viewed through the
stereo microscope, this inner halo is a cluster of cubic crystals,
leading to the belief that this is Fluorite.  Under the short wave
ultraviolet lamp, this halo fluoresces a weak green color.  No
fluorescence was apparent under the long wave ultraviolet lamp.  There
are other small carmel colored blebs in the specimen, all with the same
fluorescence as the inner halo, all with the same appearance as the
inner halo in room lighting.

Surrounding the inner halo is an outer halo.  It looks like amber to
rust colored stain in the Scapolite, rather dark amber nearest the
boundary with the inner halo, and fading with increasing distance from
the cavity.

The Scapolite also contains numerous small black areas up to about 3 mm
in size with one exception.  Some of these are irregular and have
diamond-shaped outlines.  Some of the black material consists of fine
radiating needles, these being up to about 7 mm. long in the one bigger
black area.  The radiating needles are probably Tourmaline.  Gary
believes the species is most likely Schorl, but Ferridravite and
Povondraite are also possibilities.  Some of the black grains could be
Uraninite or metamitc allanite.  No fluorescence was apparent in any of
the black areas.

Finally, there is one roughly oval shaped bleb, about 5 mm. along its
major axis, glassy, light gray in color, and translucent which appear to
be Barite.  Under the short wave ultraviolet lamp, the Barite fluoresces
a rather bright cream color.  No fluorescence was apparent under the
long wave ultraviolet lamp.

In ordinary room lighting, there are several other tiny features in this
specimen, including a very dark green bleb (probably Fluorite), greenish
yellow grains, a pink-red grain, and a blue-green bleb.  These are all
in the sub-millimeter to few millimeter size range.

Under the short wave ultraviolet lamp, additional minerals become
obvious that were not easily seen in ordinary room lighting.  There are
also numerous blebs of Calcite, sub-millimeter to a several millimeters
in size, fluorescing a soft pink-red in color.  There are also several
grains of Wollastonite, up to 3 mm long, fluorescing a bright
yellow-orange color.

Some hope for other collectors: this specimen was broken off a boulder
having only a small aboveground exposure.  The boulder was very tough
and unmovable, suggesting it is quite large.  So more of this assemblage
might exist.  Also, collected only a few yards away were some four-color
specimens containing Scapolite (same fluorescence as  above), Calcite
(fluorescing rather bright orange-red), a Feldspar mineral (fluorescing
moderate blue-gray), and an Apatite mineral (fluorescing weak

So start pumping iron, sharpen that chisel, and reinforce the sledge
hammer handle.  You could wind up with an eight-color piece.  Scapolite
crystals have also been found there.


I'd like to thank Gerry McLoughlin for all his hard work on the
specimen's parent boulder, and for giving me one of the two 5-color
specimens his efforts yielded.  I'd also like to thank John Cianciulli
and Gary Grenier for their identification of some of the minerals in the
specimen and assistance with this article.


Subject: Sterling Hill Scapolite

I wasn't on that field trip, and the only specimens I have seen were
Bill's.  I bought one from him for $15, because though it was very ugly
it was fluorescent and had a blip of fluorapatite in it.  Maybe he has
more. At the time I think he did, and was despairing of selling it
because it was so gruesome.  If you were asking after the crystal(s)
Claude found, which might not be the same stuff, you should check back
with Bill, and ask Claude.

I guess I don't know what you mean when you ask if it (Claude's
scapolite crystal) "is considered an ore body scapolite."  I saw only
Bill's material.  The place where they were collecting, between the east
and west veins (?) suggests that it all grew there.  You could ask
Claude whether he thought he was hammering on a glacial boulder, or just
something which belonged in the area.

Scapolite in many forms, including crystals, has certainly been found in
calcsilicate-rich zones in the Franklin Marble, as well as in similar
zones more closely associated with the ore bodies.  Old collections
tended to have a lot more large crystals which were weathered out of
matrix and collected from the overburden, or at least preserved due to
being exposed at the outcrop and easier to see and save.  I guess it's
harder to verify the matrix if there isn't any, and easy to be skeptical
if you haven't found anything like the crystals of old, I dunno.
However, the use of blasting agents does tend to bust up large crystals
long before anyone sees them.  "Kaboom!"  "What giant crystals?  I don't
see any giant crystals!"

I'm not sure without looking at the specimen from Bill, but if I
remember correctly, the scapolite fluoresced a weak pinkish-red, and was
associated with red-fluorescing calcite, and apatite which fluoresced
pink or orange, all of this tending to suggest that Bill's material
occurred within the manganese halo of the ore body.  I have no idea what
Claude's scapolite is like & whether it bears any resemblance to Bill's
massive pieces.

As there is only one analyzed specimen of marialite from the F/SH area,
you are probably safe in calling anything else meionite, until proven
otherwise.  Which could happen.

Dr. Kuitems Reports on a Buckwheat Dolomite Find:

In a phone conversation with Dr. Steve Kuitems I was told about his most
recent discovery.  While Steve was going through some of his vuggy
buckwheat dolomite specimens he found a few tiny lemon yellow crystals
that upon microscopic inspection proved to be sphalerite.  While this is
not an unusual find the subsequent discovery of tiny well-formed cubic
and modified cubic crystals of galena is for the buckwheat dolomite.  To
add to this discovery Steve noticed a white powdery formation on and
around the galena.  In studying this under the microscope he found fine
micro examples of cerussite sixling crystals.  Steve reported his find
to Dr. PJ Dunn who said he was not surprised that the additional
sulfides were found in the buckwheat dolomite

So, keep your eyes open for the sulfide assemblages in the buckwheat

Steve also reported that some very fine fluorescent sphalerite specimens
have continued to be recovered from the buckwheat dump.  He reported
having taken an 18" piece right out of the path.


Subject: Comments on the Chat Group
From: Jay Linninger <>
Organization: Matrix Publishing

Hi Gary,
Just a quick response to your question about continuance of the FrOg
chat electronic newsletter.  I for one, find it interesting and
informative, and print out every release.  These are kept in a binder to
be used as reference material.  I'm glad not to be FrOg maniac, and have
stated a number of times how grateful I am that Sussex Co. is in New
Jersey and not in Pennsylvania!  My FrOg reference collection is a good
one, but I don't have a missionary zeal to own a specimen of each.  I do
love the history of the place, and wish to continue being a recipient of
the Chat Group.



Subject: FrOg Surveys

To those of you who took the time to respond? thank you!  I am providing
the copy of the survey here for the group to summarize for themselves
since we have but three responses.  I think that as you study the
answers from Earl, Don, and Bill, you can see the common ground that we
share and perhaps why some subjects generate exchanges of dialog.  For
instance, of the three only Don uses a video camera to capture digital
images, thus I might conclude that one third of the respondents are
interested in digital still camera photography. However, all three have
specimens that need identification work and none have a source for the
work to be done? interesting, I am in the same boot.

Date:  Wed, 29 Jul 1998 08:29:57 -0700
From: Earl Verbeek <>

Hi Gary,

        Just trying to see if I can get through on your new e-mail
address.  Our system here has been having problems for four months now,
but today we may finally be up and running again.  I've gotten FrOg #4
and #5, but if you can easily resend the first three I'd sure appreciate

        On September 30 I retire from BLM.  Then I'll move back East, to
New Jersey (Branchville), to stay.  I'm looking forward to becoming a
part of the Franklin-Sterling Hill scene.  Sixty three day to
retirement!  Below are the responses to your questionnaire of FrOg #5.

To all Chat Group Members:

1- Are you finding this chat group useful ?  Absolutely.

2- Do you take pictures of your specimens ?  Yes, but rarely.

3- Do you use digital camera equipment ? explain your methods...  No.

4- Do your use a 35mm camera and then transfer your images to a
computer? explain your methods...  No.  But this is what I wish to do in
the future, especially for fluorescent specimens.

5- Do you have specimens that you can not identify ?  Lots.

6- What reference work do you find most useful in assisting you with you
visual identifications ?  Palache, Dunn for FrOg stuff.  For many
species, however, the descriptive detail is still insufficient for sight

7- Do you have a source for analytical work on your unknown specimens ?
Not any more

8- Would you spend money to find out via analytical equipment means what
your specimens are ?  Yes, if the tests would be definitive.  Commonly a
chemical analysis, by itself, is not.

9- Are your interested in collecting more Franklin or Sterling Hill
mineral specimens ?  Absolutely.  Always.  Forever.

10- Are you interested in selling any of your Franklin and Sterling Hill
mineral specimens ?  Yes.

11- Are you a species collector ?  No.

12- Are you strictly a Fluorescent Collector ?  No.

13- Are afraid to tell anyone what is in your collection or share
information about what you have in your collection for any reason ?
No.  I think it's immoral for one to be secretive about one's collection
and not share knowledge.

15- Is your collection accessible and not in storage ?  Nearly all of it
is in storage.

16- Would you welcome a chance to have your collection photographed
either with 35mm film or digital equipment?  Yes.  I intend to do much
of this myself when I get the chance.  At least that is my hope.

17- Do you like to study Franklin and Sterling Hill minerals ?  Yes.

18 - Do you like to write about minerals ?  Yes.

19 - Have you written about Franklin and Sterling Hill minerals ?  Yes.
explain please...  Small note about breithauptite in PT.  Several papers
in progress on fault history of Sterling Hill.

20- Do you want this Chat Group to continue ?  Absolutely.

21- What do you want the Chat Group to discuss ?  (a) All current
issues-keep us informed of what's happening out there.  (b) Advances in
digital photography.  I'll become interested when the resolution
approaches that of conventional film.  (c) Disposition of collections.

Subject: FrOg #5 Survey
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:55:59 EDT

In a message dated 7/15/98 8:07:04 PM, you wrote:

<ə- Are you finding this chat group useful ?
Yes, but I am not sure that your defination of a chat group is the same
as most people's.  I thought a chat group was live!  However, this
format is fine with me.

2- Do you take pictures of your specimens ? Yes.

3- Do you use digital camera equipment ? explain your methods... Mostly
35mm.  But I have a Hi8 Sony video camera and an old Mac 840AV that can
capture a single image.  However, I don't use that feature very much, no

4- Do your use a 35mm camera and then transfer your images to acomputer
? explain your methods... No.  Why transfer the image to a computer, you
NEVER can get the resolution in a CCD camera or a CRT monitor that you
can with a photo print or slide.  I will admit that is you want to spend
~$10,000 for a CCD camera and a super high res. monitor you can get
close, but you still cannot dupulate what a slide will do.

5- Do you have specimens that you can not identify ? Yes, doesn't every

6- What reference work do you find most useful in assisting you with you
visual identifications ? Good question.  No one work, but Manny's two
books are used the most.

7- Do you have a source for analytical work on your unknown specimens ?

8- Would you spend money to find out via analytical equipment means what
your specimens are ? Could be.  It would depend on cost.  As you know
there are two dealers that do that work now.

9- Are your interested in collecting more Franklin or Sterling Hill
mineral specimens ? Yes

10- Are you interested in selling any of your Franklin and Sterling Hill
mineral specimens ? Could be.

11- Are you a species collector ? No.

12- Are you strictly a Fluorescent Collector ? YES

13- Are afraid to tell anyone what is in your collection or share
information about what you have in your collection for any reason ? NO.
Who has heard of Renton, WA!!

15- Is your collection accessible and not in storage ? Yes

16- Would you welcome a chance to have your collection photographed
either with 35mm film or digital equipment? Could be.

7- Do you like to study Franklin and Sterling Hill minerals ? Yes, when
I have time.  I think I have a few days available in March, 2003!!

18 - Do you like to write about minerals ? Sometimes, more about UV

19 - Have you written about Franklin and Sterling Hill minerals ?
explain please... Not for 20 years, and then it was just for a local

20- Do you want this Chat Group to continue ? Yes.

21- What do you want the Chat Group to discuss ? Fluorescent minerals.

Don Newsome


Subject: FrOg #5 Survey
Date:  Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:17:46 GMT
From:  "William C. Mattison" <>


Here are my survey responses.....

1- Are you finding this chat group useful ?   yes.

2- Do you take pictures of your specimens ?   no.

3- Do you use digital camera equipment ? explain your methods...   no.

4- Do your use a 35mm camera and then transfer your images to a computer
? explain your methods...   no.

5- Do you have specimens that you can not identify ?   yes.

6- What reference work do you find most useful in assisting you with you
visual identifications ?   Robbins. other useful sources (in random
order): Jones, FMS on-line, Picking Table, Waves.  FrOg has real
potential here.

7- Do you have a source for analytical work on your unknown specimens
?   not consistently within my means.

8- Would you spend money to find out via analytical equipment means what
your specimens are ?  depends on cost, specimen, and financial state at
the time.

9- Are your interested in collecting more Franklin or Sterling Hill
mineral specimens ?   definitely!

10- Are you interested in selling any of your Franklin and Sterling Hill
mineral specimens ?    yes.

11- Are you a species collector ?  I don't think so, but I'm not certain
I know what this term means.

12- Are you strictly a Fluorescent Collector ?  better than 95%

13- Are afraid to tell anyone what is in your collection or share
information about what you have in your collection for any reason ?
very rarely.

15- Is your collection accessible and not in storage ?  usually.  I'm
currently packing it up in preparation for a job hunt.  It's just over
50% packed.  I will be looking to leave the DC region.  Once things are
sufficiently stable and secure where-ever I move to,  the collection
will be open.

16- Would you welcome a chance to have your collection photographed
either with 35mm film or digital equipment?  individual select
specimens, yes.  but I'm not interested in having the entire collection

    IMPORTANT NOTE: if someone is interested in photographing any of my
specimens, they must do so v-e-r-y  s-o-o-n!  Once the collection is
packed, it will be closed for a while.  I am also very reluctant to ship

17- Do you like to study Franklin and Sterling Hill minerals ?   yes.

18 - Do you like to write about minerals ?  casually, informally, as
time permits, yes.

19 - Have you written about Franklin and Sterling Hill minerals ?
explain please... only casually/informally.

20- Do you want this Chat Group to continue ?    y-e-s!

21- What do you want the Chat Group to discuss ?    interesting
specimens, latest finds, ongoing research, news, how-to, etc.

Comment: The FrOg chat group could serve as a good source of material
for the Picking Table, UV Waves, FMS Journal, and SHMM Newsleter.



Subject: 27th Annual NJ Earth Science Association Show
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:00:52 -0400
From: "Steve Misiur" <zincer@CERF.NET>

To all:

    The New Jersey Earth Science Association Show held in Westfield is
moving to a new venue. The Show dates will be April 24 and 25 and it is
moving to the Robert E. Littell Community Center in Franklin, NJ
(formerly known as the Franklin Armory). This is near the intersection
of Routes 23 and 517. The theme for this show is the "Million Dollar
Show" where we will have on display a million dollars in diamonds! This
event will be co-sponsored by three non-profit organizations,
Franklin-Ogdensburg Mineralogical Society, NJ Earth Science Association
and Sterling Hill Mining Museum. This event will be known as the "27th
Annual NJ Earth Science Association Gem and Mineral Show and Outdoor
Swap & Sell". As the title says it is an INDOOR and OUTDOOR event. NJESA
will be responsible for the indoor portion, FOMS will do the outdoor
portion and SHMM will do the overall co-ordination of facilities and
publicity. It is a three-way split in EXPENSES and of INCOME. Also a
three-way split in sharing of manpower, effort and responsibilities.
This show is a totally new show that has nothing to do with the annual
Franklin-Sterling Hill Show in September other than being in the same
general area!It will be $4.00 dollars donation per person with anyone
under 14 FREE with a paying adult. Donation covers admission to the
indoor AND outdoor portions. Hours will be 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM Saturday,
10 AM to 5 PM, Sunday. Then on Saturday night there will be a banquet
and auction held at the Ogdensburg Firehouse. It is $11.00 for a buffet
with beverage and desert included. This starts at 7 PM. For those who
have been at this show before will immediately remember the diverse
world wide mineral themes. This year's theme was world-wide

    This move was necessitated by several factors. 1) Expenses, the
Westfield Armory was a very expensive place to rent with expensive
services such as electricians, police and firemen patrolling. We had to
look for a cheaper place with cheaper services. 2) Shrinking attendance,
let's face it, the mineral collecting hobby is contracting. There are
fewer of Joe and Josephine Mineral Collector around any more. We had to
pick not only a less expensive place but one that had a draw AND draw in
the PUBLIC to let others know that there is a mineral hobby. By doing
that  there will be young seeds planted from which a rich crop of newer
collectors will spout. What better place to do this than in  the
Sterling Hill-Franklin area! We have visibility, reputation and clout!
These are ingredients that can but help the new effort 3) Aging guard,
the few that are left to carry on the torch is getting older and fewer.
While the NJESA Show in Westfield was splendid in every way, it took
alot of work done by a precious few and fewer even shown up to
appreciate all that work. 4) By combining the two shows, we eliminate
the one week separation of the two shows held at Westfield and Sterling
Hill. 5) Potential for growth in the area is significant, there is room
to grow in the area as Sussex County is still rural in texture and many
people are looking for things to do outside of the city areas. We
certainly are hoping to grow beyond the boundaries of the present
facilities. But lets start small. As is fondly said, we hope to have a
small success than a big failure.

    There you have it in a nutshell. That should answer any questions on
what we are aiming to do.

Subject: Mineral Links
Date: 9 Jul 1998 21:07:09 -0400

Here is a list of web pages LINKS:

Mont St. Hilaire
Mineralogy Club of Antwerp
Franklin Mineral Museum
Herbe Yeates
Franklin Historical Society

Mineral Journals
Mineralogical Record

Seamans Museum

Franklin Mineral Museum Host Page

Dealers Pages
Bad Boys
UC Minerals
OSO Soft Minerals
The Mineral Gallery
John Betts Fine Minerals
Red Cloud
Graves Lapidary
Bob's Rock Shop

Attached Photo

I have attached three JPEG photos that you should be able to open from
your Netscape or Windows 95 browser.  If not then you should be able
open them with Microsoft Photo Editor that comes standard in Windows 95
or Adobe Photoshop.

I am curious to know if all can open the image file and whether it is
dark or light on your monitors.  I have been told by CTX (monitor
manufacturer) that many monitors will differ in the color, brightness,
and contrast settings from the factory.  So, if the image is dark
increase your contrast and brightness controls on the monitor and let me

The images or of roeblingites that may be featured in the upcoming
Picking Table issue.  The first roeblingite is in a seam with rare green
massive cahnite and is capped by layers of granular ganophyllite.  The
second roeblingite is white irregular masses rimmed by white prehnite,
surrounded by granular ganophyllite and franklinite masses.  The third
roeblingite is a 6-7 color fluorescent specimen that features red
roeblingite as small round masses, red manganaxinite in diffused
patterns, yellow nasonite in granular masses, blue margarosanite in
small masses, yellow-orange clinohedrite masses, minute violet patches
of xonotlite, and green willemite in SW UV light.

'Bye for now!

Three Images

return to FrOg On-Line archive index.