In mineral collecting, few actions cause more long-term harm than guesswork. Whether it’s assuming a specimen’s identity, mislabelling a locality, or trusting an uncertain attribution, guesswork can quietly erode the integrity of an entire collection.
Many minerals look deceptively similar - think of calcite and aragonite, or pyrite and chalcopyrite. Without careful testing or confirmed locality information, even experienced collectors can make errors. A guess made in haste might seem harmless, but once written on a label or posted online, it becomes “fact” to future owners. Over time, this misinformation spreads, distorting knowledge and reducing scientific value.
Incorrect localities are particularly damaging. A mineral misattributed to a famous mine may mislead researchers, confuse dealers, and artificially inflate prices. It can also mean that a location's contribution to geological or mineralogical knowledge becomes unreliable. In contrast, a specimen labelled “unknown locality” may seem less exciting, but it’s far more honest – and respected by serious collectors.
The temptation to guess often arises when a label is lost or when a specimen arrives unlabelled from an old collection. Instead of guessing, responsible collectors use comparative testing: hardness, lutre, crystal form, streak, acid reaction, and visual reference to trusted database and photographic sources. When doubt remains, it’s best to record it clearly – for example, “possibly Bolsburn Mine, Weardale” or “unconfirmed identification”.
Accuracy builds credibility. A collection that avoids guesswork becomes a reliable resource for study and trade, preserving the truth of each specimen’s story. In mineral collecting, integrity matters as much as aesthetics – and certainty, not speculation, is the mark of a true collector.