Men of distinction

 

The mineral collector

 

Mineral Collections

 

Local Institutions

 

The specimen base

 

Mineral collections

What is known about the minerals of Franklin and Sterling Hill is derived in no small part from the collections which have been assembled. The major mineral collections are in institutions, but even these evolved from donations of small and large private collections. The preeminent collection of Franklin and Sterling Hill minerals is at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, in Washington, D. C. It contains a wealth of significant specimens, including a very substantial amount of scientifically investigated material. Containing many type specimens and rare assemblages, it has a breadth and depth which renders it indispensable as a scientific research collection. The donations of the collections of Washington Roebling and Frederick Canfield in 1927 provided a substantial increase; both were avid collectors of the minerals of Franklin and Sterling Hill. The museum’s holdings were augmented in 1955 by the acquisition of the Lawson Bauer collection, which was shared with Harvard University, and in 1992 by the donation of the John L. Baum collection. Both the Bauer and Baum collections added many scientifically important assemblages and increased depth; they are of great mineralogical and geological importance. Significant acquisitions in recent years include very thoughtful multiple donations by Richard Bostwick, John Kolic, Alice Kraissl, and Richard and Elna Hauck, as well as the purchase of 180 specimens formerly in the MacDonald collection.

The collection of the Harvard Mineralogical Museum is likewise very valuable, containing part of the material described in the many studies of Palache, Berman, and Frondel, and many type specimens. Its Franklin-Sterling Hill holdings have grown through the acquisition of the collections of A. F. Holden, E. P. Hancock, S. R. Losey, and half of the Lawson Bauer collection. The Harvard collection has a great many high-quality, aesthetic specimens from Franklin and Sterling Hill. Like that of the National Museum, this collection is indispensable to serious Franklin researchers.

The collection of the Franklin Mineral Museum is comprised of both small collections and larger ones donated by Alice Kraissl and Ethel Packard (Sunny) Cook. There are substantial strengths in these collections; they are important. In 1985, the museum acquired the local collection of Ewald Gerstmann, formerly part of the private Gerstmann Franklin Mineral Museum (Kushner, 1976; Miller, 1982), and in 1991 it acquired the Wilfred Welsh collection of minerals from world-wide occurrences.

In addition to these three most significant institutional collections, numerous others exist. Among the more important of these are at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, which contains the Bement collection; Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, which contains the Brush collection; the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, which contains the Seybert Collection; the Paterson Museum in Paterson, New Jersey; and Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, which has parts of the Rowe collection.

Substantial numbers of significant specimens repose in private collections, the more important of which are held by members of the Franklin- Ogdensburg Mineralogical Society. Although a few local collections have been donated, in whole or in part, to initiate or build-up large institutional holdings, the majority of private collections are subjected to postmortem recycling through personal and commercial channels and are thus dispersed, in large part, into already established or newly-forming private collections. Some archival value is usually lost in such dispersal; some is retained. Brief histories of the disposition of some private collections of local minerals are given by Palache (1935) and Frondel (1972). Aside from these partial accountings by responsible scientists, the disposition of local collections and the activites of local dealers in local minerals is largely unrecorded.

Such private collections are quite varied in content and sophistication. Numerous collections are devoted wholly to the minerals from the orebodies and proximal marble quarries. Some collection-owners, in good-natured parochialism, decline to include other specimens as a point-of-pride; in the local argot, such “other” specimens are called “foreign rocks.” In another manifestation of local slang, some collectors and miners refer to Sterling Hill, in Ogdensburg, as “The Burg.” 

Most collections are of a general nature, but some have well-developed and useful specialties (vein minerals, fluorescent minerals, microcrystals, and many others). On the whole, the collections reflect not only the physical and acquisitive energies and financial resources of the collector, but often also the niche in time when the collection was amassed. For example, early collections are notably weak in the best fluorescent minerals, in part because they were assembled before the advent of ultraviolet lamps and/or their introduction underground. Similarly, the early absence of fine and relatively inexpensive microscopes precluded much in the way of microcrystal collecting (except for a few specialists) until recent decades.

Additionally, a great many personal-preference factors have influenced the nature of private collections. Although some of the various personal influences on collections are too numerous and trivial to mention here, two in particular are noteworthy. The first of these is the extraordinarily thoughtful and admirable specimen-labeling of Lawson (Duke) Bauer, chemist of the New Jersey Zinc Company and a mineral collector. Bauer split a given sample he studied, analyzing a portion of it, and wrote the chemical analysis directly on the other portion(s) of the specimen, thereby forever linking the data with the specimen. This has been of invaluable assistance in correlations by subsequent scientists. The science could greatly benefit from a wider adoption of his approach.

A second admirable personal influence has been the superb relief-carving of local crystal specimens. This is a process (Figures 7-14 and 7-15) in which the rock (commonly calcite) surrounding a mostly hidden, but superb, crystal is painstakingly removed bit by bit to expose enough of the crystal for appreciation, while leaving the rest embedded in the rock matrix both for protection and the retention of a partial geologic record.

	Figure 7-14. Many superb specimens have been “recovered” by artisans and collectors who have carefully removed the surrounding matrix, commonly calcite, exposing previously concealed crystals. These two images illustrate the process and the resultant specimen. Drawings by Dave Woods, used with permission.		Figure 7-15. Uvite in white calcite of the Franklin Marble, from Franklin. This specimen is one in which the crystal has been exposed by carving away the enclosing calcite. Specimen is 8 mm in maximum dimension. Mineralogical Museum, Harvard University, #121774. Photograph by Chip Clark.

The local marble, bearing many isolated, idioblastic crystals, is relatively soft and easily carved away. This is an example of creative, artistic, mineral trimming. Such specimens, easily recognized by the numerous scratches surrounding the crystal of interest, are found in many institutional and some private collections, but the largest concentration of them is in the Elwood P. Hancock collection at Harvard University. Hancock was a skilled and very patient carver (Wolff, 1917), and his efforts were praised by Palache (1951), who coincidentally mentioned that Mr. Losey of Franklin did some similar carving.

	Figure 7-16. Many collections were developed and augmented by the table-tenders at the mills’ picking tables. This one was at the Palmer Mill. Invitations to visit and gather some specimens were greatly coveted.

 

Many trivial and accessory sidelines developed within the collector community, contributing specialties to the local mineral culture. These included the lapidary arts, the creation of fake specimens and artful replications, and the like.

A few of these sidelines had aspects which appealed to a more general audience. Among these were lovely, clear, colorless, sealed, glass bottles containing differently-colored layers of various powdered local minerals. The layers varied in thickness, color, and mineral content, and often had artistically-induced textural effects at the inter-mineral boundaries. Such decorative powder-filled bottles were created at least as early as the 1930’s.

Fluorescent minerals were in some cases crushed or powdered, mixed with various media, and used to prepare fluorescent “paints” which were in turn used to create “paintings,” albeit usually coarse-grained ones. Some of these are magnificently done; the preponderance are not, but they are often included in fluorescent-mineral exhibits as a novelty item.

Fireplaces in the area and elsewhere were often constructed of, or faced with, fluorescent minerals from Franklin and Sterling Hill. Some of these are spectacular, and all are interesting.

In 1926 a massive and beautiful fireplace was built in the Sussex County Historical Society building in Newton, New Jersey. It is made entirely of rocks with local geological or historical significance and bears memorial tablets made of zinc from the local deposits. Local minerals also were used for rock-gardens, backyard barbecue structures, and a host of other decorative uses.

 

Copyright © 1995 by Pete J. Dunn			Website by Herb Yeates
Link to homepage
This page created: January 11, 2001