FrOg On-Line #2001-05

Welcome to FrOg On-Line #2001-05, Tuesday, June 05, 2001


1. Introduction
2. Charlesite
3. "Subscriber" List

1. Introduction

Greetings.  This body of this issue consists solely of a discussion between
Gary Grenier, John Cianciulli, and Bruce Cairncross regarding charlesite and
the list of minerals unique to Franklin/Ogdensburg maintained by John.  I had a
difficult time deciding whether or not to publish this discussion because
(1) I am concerned some parts could offend, and (2) I am uncertain that this
discussion would be of any real benefit to the FrOg community.  I decided to go
for it, with a little editing.  Parts were deleted for any one or more of the
following reasons: they were off-topic; there was significant risk of them
being perceived as "getting personal"; they made no real contribution to the
FrOg community; and the author explicitly marked them private.  Why did I
decide to go for it?  Because (1) I hope this gives the community some sense of
all that is involved in maintaining the FrOg mineral lists; (2) this indirectly
gives some sense of the authority (or lack thereof) of museum displays and
books; and (3) gives some sense how members of the FrOg community can be of
help in maintaining the FrOg mineral lists.

In early May, Gary Grenier e-mailed me three articles regarding the Franklin/
Ogdensburg mineral list.  Due to the length of this FrOg On-Line issue, I'm
holding those for the next issue.  Other articles (such as a collecting report
from Mark Boyer) will be held for the issue after the next.  These will take
some time; I'm seriously swamped these days, and probably for the remainder of
this month.

As far as I know, there are no new activities or events to be added to what was
in FrOg On-Line #2001-03, so see that issue for the schedule of events.  All
past FrOg On-Line issues may be viewed in the FrOg On-Line Archive at url

Here goes......

2. Charlesite

Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 09:45:06 -0400
From: Gary Grenier <>
To: "(William Mattison)" <>,
        Peter Chin <Peter.Chin@USPTO.GOV>
Subject: Re: The Unique Mineral List






Frog On-line 2001-03 presented the problems of species recognition in the
"Unique to Franklin list" of minerals maintained by JC very well.  Have you
made any progress in getting JC to identify for us what "document officially
describing the second occurrence" that he mentioned in the replies published in
Frog On-Line 2001-03?  Is he referring to a particular professional
mineralogical publication such as the American Mineralogist?  Or, must we
purchase specimens, sacrifice them to Excalibur for testing, and then submit
the analysis and write-up to him for publication in the Picking Table before
the species can be added or subtracted from a list?  What are his recognized
"official" written documents?

I understand that the Smithsonian may be mistaken in putting out a species for
the US public to view when that species has not been written up and studied in
an acceptable document that "officially" describes their occurrence, but the
Smithsonian has on hand Dr. Dunn and a whole battery of analytical equipment
that they use to assure species identification of what they put on display.
The Smithsonian is also the repository for many halo-type species specimens and
first time discoveries of new species thanks to their research.  After all, the
collections maintained by the Smithsonian are a physical reference for many
scientific communities including the USGS.  As you may recall Dr. Dunn worked
on the Kalahari minerals with Dr. Peacor 11 or 12 years ago and was first to
announce the occurrence of Charlesite from the Wessels and N'Chwaning mines.

Then there is a body of work in two separate volumes from Dr. Cairncross,
Mineralogist, of the Johannesburg Museum, South Africa that describe charlesite
coming from the manganese mines.  The Manganese Adventure and The Minerals of
South Africa are both excellent references and written by professional
mineralogists.  So, it should be a foregone conclusion that charlesite is no
longer unique to Franklin as the evidence mounts, but for some reason it is
not.  So what does the curator of the Franklin Mineral Museum read or subscribe
to that directs him to include charlesite on the unique to Franklin list?  Does
JC have information that disproves charlesite from South Africa?

In the absence of information that contests or disproves the professional
findings (in print) of peer mineralogists there can be no argument.  That leads
us back to the question of form versus substance.  JC must only be able to take
information in a particular form, content, and from a particular source to be
able to adjust species lists.  Perhaps one day we will have a clear explanation
from JC of what is acceptable, but until that time the List will be out of sync
with the rest of the world.

Gary Grenier



I have been communicating with Dr. Cairncross for some time and have a growing
collection of Kalahari manganese field South African minerals.  I have
collected many sturmanites, ettringites, and particularly important Dr.
Cairncross's charlesite specimen (from his personal collection).  In recent
communication with Dr. Cairncross he predicted that the flow of specimens from
the manganese mines would continue for many years to come.  He reported that
the more porous specimen producing zones have been mined out for now, but
should be hit again in a couple of months.  The fields stretch under the desert
for over 100 miles and represent a past under sea formation of horizontally
bedded minerallization.  So, we can expect more mineral specimens in the

Lately, I have written to Dr. Cairncross requesting assistance in finding the
published analysis of the charlesite from the Wessels and N'Chwaning South
African mines.  When I have received his reply I will relay his information to

It would not be the first time that the publication of scientific results
important to Franklin species lists occurred in an obscure publication.  It is
possible that formal recognition of charlesite was written in German and
published in Lapis or a European professional mineralogical journal not
normally translated and made available to the US.

Of course, Dr. Dunn's original work, Smithsonian sponsored, was US published.
And, Dr. Dunn has made mistakes in the past that have later been retracted
such as Baumite.  In this case, there was a conflicting report or two after Dr.
Dunn announced charlesite from South Africa that they were really ettringite or
sturmanite.  However, Dr. Cairncross's work on the species post dates Dr.
Dunn's and should supercede the earlier work and should eliminate the confusion
caused by Dr. Dunn.

While large museums and national collections have resources to track hundreds
of professional publications and staff like the USGS to confirm findings the
FMM and FOMS does not.  I do not expect JC to have to learn German, Swedish, or
French to follow professional findings in Europe, or to subscribe to Lanny
Ream's Mineral News newsletter, or go online to one of several species locator
services to maintain the list, but when arm chair collector books are written
about a mining area by professional mineralogists who have worked with the
mines and minerals, in English, it should be pursued with greater zeal.

Laurel, Maryland


Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 18:13:00 -0400
Subject: The Unique Mineral List
To: (William Mattison) <>


The "List", Unique to Franklin and Sterling Hill List, and the Fluorescent
Species List have an interesting and long history.  Many lists of Franklin and
Sterling Hill minerals have appeared in print over the past 200 years.  More
recently the Palache list was the collectors' guide, then Frondel with his
"Check List", then Kushner, and The Picking Table, and then Dr. Dunn/Baum.
What is interesting is what has caused the over cautious to constrictive
behavior of the "Keepers of the List" over the past 30 or so years.

I have been interested in the Species List for over 18 years and not just
because I was a species collector.  My issue has been how to present 320+
species with more than name information so that it is useful as a collector
reference.  The presentation of the Species List by chemical groups, or crystal
forms, or Dana simply confuses the average collector.  The most useful way to
present the species is alphabetically even though that method imparts the least
amount of useful information.  Adding chemical formulas and mineral groups to
the alphabetized list was tried, but editing and finding "valid" formulas
stopped that effort in its tracks as many collectors contested the
"correctness" of the formulas.

Oh, I have done it and maintain that kind of list, but in the absence of good
updates of chemical information it is almost always out of date.  For example,
changes in nomenclature, changes in formula characterizations +2 or 2+, and now
it is a species and now it is not - tirodite versus manganocummingtonite or
stilpnomelane versus ferro or ferristilpnomelane with new and subtlety variant
formulas are enough to drive any list keeper to wish for a simpler list method.
But, that was not the problem that our predecessors had to wrestle with.  No,
they had to figure out what was bogus and what was real from the many accounts
such as John Albanese had written 10 years earlier and many collectors believed
was gospel.

This "system" of misinformation was perpetuated by the dealers and of all
things The Picking Table.  JC is correct to be wary of dealers trading species
since he to is a dealer and must hold his identifications to a high standard,
which many (most?)  dealers do not.  Unfortunately, many dealers just pass on
the information presented to them or go willy-nilly slapping labels on
specimens to move them out.  Here again, in Franklin the problem was not the
dealers since they often relied on the FMM and Jack Baum for sight
identification services.  The problem was The Picking Table.  The accounts of
unverified finds and new species to the area and subsequently quickly adding
the species on the List occurred without method or apparent verification.

If you have the time to study mineral names and those attributed to Franklin
species you should notice that virtually every species has a series of
colloquial names that at one time or another the collecting community took as
valid species names.  In fact these names are still with us like troostite for
willemite or calamine for hemimorphite.  All of this added to the lore of
Franklin and further confused the collector.  So, it was bad that everyone
outside of the Franklin area called both mines Franklin and ascensioned their
collections as having specimens from only one mine - Franklin, but then we
added to the problem and confusion by using bogus species names when specimens
were displayed or traded.

So, to the rescue came Dr. Dunn who took over the List and created a method
for adding species, which was and is based in the presentation of scientific
facts.  For example, the new species to the deposit synchesite was found on the
Buckwheat dump, specimens provided to the FMM, x-ray defraction and optical
verification tests performed, data analyzed and presented, story written,
accepted, and the species added to the list.  This is a good and sound method
and one of Dr. Dunn's legacies.  In fact, Dr. Dunn did a lot to advance the
science of mineralogy in Franklin and Sterling Hill, aside from writing the
landmark multi-volume set of mineral reference books on Franklin and Sterling
Hill in 1995.

By creating the Friends of Franklin in the late 70's he tapped into the
collector network for new and emerging specimen materials on which to study.
In the 10 years that followed his studies produced a number of published new
minerals and the need to advance The Picking Table to the Professional Journal
status it now enjoys.  However, with that came the serious responsibility to be
accurate and the old reporting of "I think I found some whachamacallit over in
the Buckwheat a couple years ago and now I am sure it is whachamacallit" story
of a new mineral found at Franklin just does not cut it.

So, while we are frustrated by what we take to be obvious and see the "Keeper
of the List" slow to react to that obvious seemingly incontrovertible fact,
like charlesite from South Africa, bear with him as he has 4-decades of
predecessor methodology weighing on his every move.  I like to see the list of
species grow and change with the times and events in the mineral world.  I too
am embarrassed by the mistakes of the past and believe that we must use sound
scientific methods to back up our assertions and expect no less of JC.

If anything, over time we have become used to the speed by which we can find
and retrieve information and have become somewhat intolerant of systems that do
not move as quickly.  Furthermore, I can not explain JC's methods or
requirements for adding or subtracting a species from the list, even though I
knew what to expect when Dr. Dunn was maintaining the List.  Perhaps JC can be
persuaded to do an article in The Picking Table that details his methods as
"The Keeper of the List"?

Gary Grenier
Associate Editor and Staff Photographer
The Picking Table

and YES you can publish


Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 12:55:04 +0000
From: William Mattison <>
To: John Ciancuilli <>
CC: Gary Grenier <>
Subject: request.

Hi John,

In separate messages, I am forwarding to you messages I received from Gary
Grenier reagrding the "list".

I understand you have much else to do, but I would much appreciate your reply
to Gary's messages.  His messages will be included in the next FrOg On-Line.
Pleaase write your comments such that I can publish them, too, in FrOg On-Line.
I think Gary is right:  a clear practical policy on both lists - the list of
all FrOg minerals and the list of minerals unique to FrOg - needs to be
communicated to the FrOg community.

My objectives here are (1) constructive discussion of FrOg list policies in
FrOg On-Line, leading to (2) refinements in the policies, published in FrOg
On-Line, followed by additional iterations of (1) and (2) until we have the
best practical policies we can realistically hope for, then (3) the policy
being published in the PT.

Thank-you in advance for your participation.

*** private ***



Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 10:17:16 -0400
From: Gary Grenier <>
To: Peter Chin <Peter.Chin@USPTO.GOV>,,
        "(William Mattison)" <>
Subject: Dr. Cairncross & Charlesite



I have written Dr. Cairncross (correspondence follows) regarding the issue
published analysis of charlesite from South Africa.  It appears, as you will
read, that JC is correct in his assertion that published data from South Africa
is not available.  Please relay my findings to JC.

However, this still begs the question - On what analysis is the Smithsonian
basing their display of South African charlesite?  And, can we get a copy for

I will ask Peter Chin to pursue his Smithsonian contacts including writing Dr.
Dunn for additional assistance in clearing up this analysis documentation

Gary Grenier
Associate Editor and Staff Photographer
The Picking Table


Hi Dr. Cairncross:

I hope you are well.  I have another South African mineral topic that causes me
write to you.  Allow me to provide some background information for you.  I have
been a Franklin and Sterling Hill, New Jersey collector and miner at Sterling
Hill for many years.  Many species have been found at these mines not found
elsewhere, charlesite being one.  The report by Dr. Dunn that charlesite had
been found at the Wessels and N'Chwaning mines caused a stir some 11 or 12
years ago.  Your books reference charlesite and dealers have sold many
specimens labeled charlesite.  Most collectors now presume that charlesite
comes from the South African manganese fields.

The curator of the Franklin Mineral Museum maintains the Franklin and Sterling
Hill species list and continues to assert (perhaps correctly?)  that charlesite
should be maintained on the "Unique to Franklin" list.  Given that John
Ciancuilli, FMM Curator may require analysis results and other confirming
literature to document the new occurrence for a "Unique to Franklin" mineral
list removal, where would he find that information?  That is, do you know in
which professional mineralogical journal the occurrence and subsequent x-ray
defraction, optical, SEM, refractive index, light absorption, hardness and
color or any analytical data and images were published?

It was recently reported that the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History here in
Washington, DC is displaying a large white charlesite from the N'Chwaning mine
South Africa.  There have been reports that sturmanite and ettringite crystals
often have charlesite cores or white charlesite overgrowths.  The mystery of
what is and is not charlesite continues to perplex me.

Can you direct me to professional literature resources that provide analysis
results on South African charlesite specimens?  While I would enjoy reading
more descriptive mineralogy and morphology, I would like to see and compare
analysis results to those of Franklin charlesite.

Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Gary Grenier
Laurel, Maryland, USA


Dear Gary,

Thanks for your request on the charlesite, but my reply is not going to satisfy
you, I'm afraid.

To my knowledge, and that of my colleague, Dr Jens Gutzmer, there is no
published data on Kalahari charlesite in any of the professional literature.
That is why we are always very careful to place a "disclaimer" when we write
about the ettringite/charlesite/sturmanite from the Kalahari manganese field.
Apparently, Roger Dixon, my co-author on the "MInerals of South Africa" book
identified charlesite (but did not publish anything) and was planning to do a
PhD on this mineral suite, but he never did undertake this project.  The
identification is further compounded by the fact that ettringite and sturmanite
and gypsum are often found intergrown and zoned in the same crystal!

I would seriously question the validity of any species identified as charlesite
unless the specimen has accompanying analytical data.  I wonder who the
Smithsonian acquired their specimen from and whether they have analyzed it to
see if it is indeed charlesite.  Some mineral dealers perpetuate this problem
by selling "charlesite" when the mineral is most probably ettringite.

So I would say that Franklin and Sterling Hill still have the claim to having
charlesite as a unique species, unless someone somewhere can produce data for
the South African material and once and for all lay this issue to rest.


Prof B. Cairncross
Dept. Geology, RAU
P.O. Box 524                   Internet
Auckland Park 2006             tel:27 11 489-2313
South Africa                   fax: 27 11 489-2309



Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:49:45 -0400
From: John Cianciulli <>
To: William Mattison <>
CC: michin <>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Dr. Cairncross & Charlesite]

Dear Bill,
	I am not trying to frustrate people.  I hope to maintain a clean list
as to not negate the many years of "clean-up" diligently performed by Dunn &
Baum.  I have received a paper published in 1995 that mentions charlesite.  I
have yet to review it and discuss it with colleagues.  So far it looks good.  I
will let you folks know as soon as I do.
        The IMA has redefined the nomenclature for micas, amphiboles, and
zeolites.  Some of the changes are pretty straight forward.  Others are
awaiting re-discovery in laboratories.  The end result may be new specie names
for members of these groups.  We are trying to work through these changes
responsibly.  This is not a case of misidentification, rather of
        The protocol for listing minerals on the FrOg species list was
published a few P/T's ago in an article titled "changing of the guard."
        I welcome information concerning new FrOg finds and would appreciate
input from the collector community.  Scientific papers are welcome.  Collector
musings are entertaining but not helpful for keeping the local mineral lists
clean.  Recent Buckwheat finds show how you guys can help add knowledge to the
area.  The Franklin-Sterling mineral species list is now at 352.  353, 354, and
355 are in the hopper.  I am also revisiting reported finds such as "smythite"
and others.  Be patient!........JC

[ The article John refers to is "The List: Changing of the Guard" by John ]
[ Cianciulli.  It was published on pages 21-23 of the 1999 combined issue ]
[ (volume 40) of "The Picking Table".  - moderator.                       ]


Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 20:45:15 -0400
From: John Cianciulli <>
To: "William C. Mattison" <>,
        michin <>
Subject: charlesite ?

Dear Bill,
                                                             Paul Shizume
brought the charlesite question to me a couple of months ago followed by Pete
Chin.  I researched our resources at the museum to find Mineralogical Record
briefly mentioned the possibility of charlesite/ettringite being in zones in
the cores of sturmannite xls found at the Kalahari manganese fields.  No data
was published and the only reference was Peacor and Dunn's original sturmannite
description in the Canadian Mineralogist.  The museum does not have a set of
CM's so I called Dr. Dunn for further information.  The sturmannite paper does
not describe charlesite as being present (Dunn).  I also asked Dr. Dunn about
the charleite crystal specimen on display at the NHM.  He said the specimen was
purchased as such but has not been verified.  The dealer offered the specimen
as a charlesite and it was purchased as such.  About three weeks ago I received
a paper from Dr. Dunn titled" Minerals of South Africa" written by Bruce
Caincross and Roger Dixon published in the Geological Survey of South Africa
(1995).  I mailed a copy of this paper to Pete Chin a couple of weeks ago.
This is what the paper had to say:
"Charlesite has been identified as a colourless core in various sturmannite
crystals from the Wessels and N'Chwaning II mines.  Many specimens which have
been labelled as sturmannite, are most probably iron or manganese-rich
charlesite."  No data was given.


Subject: Charlesite
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 10:35:04 -0400
From: (Gary Grenier)
To: (Professor Bruce Cairncross) <>

Dear Dr. Cairncross:

Thank you for the clear accounting of the lack of published analysis on
charlesite. I presume that the reason that charlesite is still discussed is due
to the original Dunn and Peacor studies.

My next stop is to ask the Smithsonian Institution for their help in retrieving
analytical results that they must have produced with their equipment to have
put a South African Charlesite on public display. I know that I am perhaps
making an assumption again, but at least it will resolve and clarify the issue
for us here.

If and when I have a reply from the Smithsonian or Dr. Dunn I will share my
findings with you.

If the Smithsonian reply is that they to are relying on the Dunn and Peacor
originally publish work is it possible to acquire specimens for a new study
that you "think" or "feel" have the high potential to contain charlesite? I
will undertake this effort personally and have the assistance of Prof. Lance
Kearns or Excalibur Minerals analytical services at my disposal. Whatever
information that is developed from this study will be shared with you. Please
let me know of specimen availability when you get the chance.

Once again thank you for your help.

All the best,



(Professor Bruce Cairncross wrote to Gary Grenier:)

Dear Gary,

I think your efforts to resolve the charlesite saga are going to rest with the
Smithsonian specimen. I don't have any suspected charlesite crystals in my
collection. The only one that I know of that is assumed to be one, is in the
Desmond Sacco collection - a euhedral crystal several cm across, and he will
definitely not allow it to be sampled. So specimen availability is very

Prof B. Cairncross
Dept. Geology, RAU
P.O. Box 524                   Internet
Auckland Park 2006             tel:27 11 489-2313
South Africa                   fax: 27 11 489-2309


Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 01:05:26 -0400
From: Gary Grenier <>
To: William Mattison <>
Subject: Charlesite



Dr. Cairncross:

Thanks again for the speedy reply.  I will seek help in resolving the
charlesite issue at the Smithsonian with Dr. Dunn.

In a separate correspondence from John Cianciulli, Curator Franklin Mineral
Museum, he reports having recently received a 1995 paper in which charlesite is
mentioned.  I have no other details at this time, but will share the
information as it is made available to me.  When he has time to research the
paper and report on the findings I will have more information to share, but
unfortunately we must now wait.  I have asked for a copy of the paper to send
you.  If the paper has merit I am sure it will be shared.

I really appreciate your attention to my requests for assistance and look
forward to reading your next book...

All the Best,
Gary Grenier
Associate Editor and Staff Photographer
The Picking Table


(John Cainciulli wrote to Gary Granier:)
        The charlesite issue has been on my desk for about three months.  Paul
Shizume was the first to bring this matter to my attention when he found
charlesite from Kalahari being offered for sale.  I tried to order a sample but
they were fresh out of specimens when I told them who I was.  I researched all
resources cited on various websites and all pointed back to Dunn's paper on
charlseite.  Having been unsuccessful at finding literature comfirming The
Kalahari find I called Dr.  Dunn about references he may have known about.  I
researched the original charlesite paper thinking I may have missed something.
Pete pulled the sturmannite paper by Peacor and Dunn and reviewed it with me
over the phone.  No data on a second occurrence of charlesite was found.  Min
Record ran three separate articles on Kalahari Manganese field mineral
discoveries that mentioned charlesite may be, along with ettringite found as
cores in large yellow stutmannite xls.  I called a friend at the Geological
Survey of Canada and asked if he would kindly research any CM paper that
mentions a second occurrence of charlesite.  April 9, 2001 Dr.  Dunn sent me a
copy of a South African Geological Survey 1995 by Cairncross and Dixon.  This
paper is not an official paper on a second occurrence of charlesite though in
his cover letter Dr.  Dunn says the authors are reputable.  I am taking the
advice of Dr.  Cairncross and leaving charlesite on the Franklin unique list
until it has been properly described.  There is no doubt in my mind charlesite
exists but given the many reports over the last ten years, the answer remains
ambiguous at the least.  Dr.  Dunn has also looked into the so-called
charlesite specimen that is on display at the Smithsonian.  His Quote:  "Paul
Powat tells me we have a big one from S.A.  on exhibit, but it was not verified
here; it is labelled as we got it; we know nothing."

	Pete Chin has been aware of my efforts to get to the root of this
matter.  I sent him a copy of Dunn's response, a copy of S.A.  Geological
Survey 1995 and have shared all developments with him since we started
researching this matter.  Call Pete maybe he will share some of this
information with you.  I wanted to work this probl3em to a conclusion and not
perpetuate the rumors.
        You might be interested to know that I am pursuing others as


Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 19:09:24 -0400
From: Gary Grenier <>
CC: Peter Chin <Peter.Chin@USPTO.GOV>,
        William Mattison <>,
Subject: Re: Charlesite


Thank you for the explanation of the research papers and lack thereof regarding
South African charlesite.  I have been looking for Kalahari labeled charlesite
for about four years and have landed several specimens of
ettringite-sturmanite-charlesite.  I agree that the labeling seemed to be
predicated on who labeled the specimen first although the specimen from Dr.
Cairncross's personal collection came to me directly from the Mineralogical
Research Company, Sharon Cisnaros, through which Dr. Cairncross released the

A big thank you for clearing up the Smithsonian mystery regarding the display
charlesite and the authentication work done on it, that is - NONE.  I am
surprised by that news.

I am seeing Peter later tonight and will raise the issue of information sharing
and how best to be part of the R&D team.  It is obvious that we need to get on
the same page when it comes to effort.  We are always required to push back the
information barriers in search of the truth about what has been studied and
where the results are...  I will continue to endeavor to support those efforts
and appreciate being kept in the loop.

I especially agree that  the perpetuation of rumors is the last thing I want to
do.  Unfortunately, the charlesite issue has been laying around for so long it
was easy to become comfortable with it still on the unique list and yet on
display at the Smithsonian.  Your difficulty in finding verifiable data and
research on the Kalahari charlesite was the same I experienced.  I was hoping
that you of all people would have an inroad at the Smithsonian and resolve this
one quickly.  It does not look that way though.

Perhaps I should send my specimens out to be tested?  Food for thought.  As it
stands I continue to agree with you and Dr. Cairncross... Franklin still has
the only know verified occurrence of charlesite.

I appreciate your reply.




I have compiled my email correspondence, which follows, regarding the issue of
charlesite remaining on the Franklin Unique list. As you can see from the
correspondence some assumptions regarding both the apparent published facts and
Smithsonian display material are incorrect. 

In fact, the 1995 publication that "mentions Charlesite" as referenced by John
Cianciulli in his last email is none other than excerpts from the Cairncross
and Dixon book "The Manganese Adventure". Additionally, you will notice in the
John's response he has been in contact with Dr. Dunn and discovered that the
specimen of Charlesite on display at the Smithsonian was not tested or received
with analysis results that undeniably proves charlesite from South Africa. 

Even Dr. Cairncross states that the research that was done to permit publishing
charlesite in "The Manganese Adventure" was never published and therefore
should permit the Franklin Mineral Museum to maintain charlesite on the Unique
to Franklin List.

In conclusion, John does a good job of providing details of research not
ordinarily shared with the collecting community and correctly asserts that for
the time being the only known occurrence of charlesite is Franklin. The
challenge now is to stay on the look out for new data, research, or
publications that provide new information on charlesite from South Africa. John
has freely stated that he welcomes the assistance in locating and receiving
research and data on Franklin and Sterling Hill minerals. So, does anyone have
a verified charlesite from South Africa WITH analysis results that support your
assertion and would you like to publish those results? If so, let John or I



3. "Subscriber" List

NJ   Larry Berger
NC   Alan Borg 
NY   Dick Bostwick
NJ   Mark Boyer
CA   Kevin Brady
PA   Bob Carnein
VA   Peter Chin          Peter.Chin@USPTO.GOV
NJ   John Cianciulli
NJ   John Corsello
CT   Denis De Angelis
CA   Fred Devito
FL   Sandra Downs
VA   Steve Gordon
NY   Howie Green
MD   Gary Grenier
MN   Tim Hanson
NY   Tema Hecht
CA   Andy Honig
CA   Mark Isaacs
MI   John Jaszczak
NY   Carl Kanoff
NJ   Steve Kuitems
FL   Roy Lambert
NY   Donald Lapham
NY   Greg Lesinski
PA   Jay Lininger
PA   Mike Logan
     Gavin Malcolm             England
CO   Peter Marikle
MD   Bill Mattison
CA   Dan McHugh
NJ   Dan McHugh Sr.
VA   Curt Michanczyk
CA   Doug Mitchell
CO   Pete Modreski
WA   Don Newsome
NJ   Jeff Osowski
AZ   George Polman
NJ   Nathan Schachtman
NY   Paul Shizume
MD   Steve Shramko
NJ   Dave Slaymaker
CT   Charles Sloan
CA   Jane Grover-Smith
CA   Kent Smith
NJ   Chris Thorsten
NJ   Jim Tozour
NJ   Earl Verbeek
PA   John Vidumsky
PA   Eric Weis 
NM   Dru Wilbur
VA   David Woolley
FL   Herb Yeates
CA   Wayne Young

return to FrOg On-Line archive index.