SUSSEXITE
Mn2+BO2(OH),
manganese boron hydroxide
In the late 1860s, George J. Brush of Yale University visited the Franklin area and collected specimens of a fibrous mineral that shortly thereafter (Brush, 1868) he described as a mineral new to science: sussexite. Brush collected his specimens at the Hamburg mine, located in the northern part of the west limb of ore at Franklin, within the triangular area enclosed by Main, High, and Junction Streets. Franklin is thus the type locality for the species. The type material is a compact, white fibrous mineral in a vein in massive franklinite-rich ore, associated in the vein with pyrochroite, dolomite, and rhodochrosite. A “typical but unusually large” specimen about 17 cm long is pictured in plate 19B (opposite p. 123) of Palache’s 1935 monograph. White fibrous sussexite of a less compact, more silky form was subsequently found in the Trotter, Taylor, and Parker mines at Franklin. Most sussexite specimens from Franklin follow the general description of a white fibrous vein mineral in ore, but sussexite is not the only locally occurring mineral that can be so described. Many such Franklin and Sterling Hill specimens are sight-identified and labeled as sussexite when they are white fibrous amphiboles, fluoborite, or the mixture of fibrous amphiboles, calcite, and zincite known to collectors as “calcozincite.” Slawson (1934), for example, noted that two purported specimens of Franklin sussexite in the University of Michigan collection proved, upon analysis, not to be that mineral. Authenticated specimens of white fibrous sussexite from Franklin and Sterling Hill remain uncommon: five examples, three from Franklin (SSX5, SSX14, and SSX25) and two from Sterling Hill (SSX17, SSX37) are in the sussexite photo gallery.
Palache (1935) mentions that in 1927, a different form of sussexite was found on the picking table at Franklin as a “dull-pink massive substance” layered with dull-yellow cherty willemite in a vein in granular franklinite-willemite ore; two excellent specimens from the 1927 find (SSX20, SSX41) are included here. While specimens from the above find are scarce, at least one subsequent find of massive pinkish-lavender sussexite was made at Franklin; unlike the earlier find, this consists of a vein in ore combining the two overall forms of sussexite: pinkish and massive, white and fibrous. In one particularly showy example (SSX27) striated massive pinkish-lavender sussexite is combined and to some extent interlayered with white fibrous sussexite in a vein on typical granular franklinite-willemite-zincite ore. Note that the striations in the massive pinkish sussexite, which is in contact with the wall rock of the vein, have the same orientation as the fibers in the white fibrous sussexite developed further into the vein. This material was re-analyzed in 1982 by Pete Dunn, who found the “dull-pink” mineral to be a mixture of sussexite and hodgkinsonite (Dunn and Bostwick, 1982).
Prior to the early 1960s, sussexite was an uncommon mineral from Franklin and virtually unknown from Sterling Hill. However, with the systematic development and exploitation of Sterling Hill’s North Orebody (NOB) between 1961 and 1978, sussexite, mostly massive and ranging in color from tan to lavender to purple, was found in abundance there (Frondel and Ito, 1965) and became the NOB’s signature mineral. Colorful and distinctive, NOB sussexite was popular with miners and collectors alike, and its variety from that part of the mine is amply demonstrated in the sussexite photo gallery. Not only does sussexite exist there in its two main forms - white to tan and fibrous, and tan to pink to purple and cherty - but also in hybrid grains of massive purplish sussexite that exhibit fibrous structure (SSX28), rarely with a distinct radiating habit (SSX4, SSX7). There are also examples of sussexite in tan bundles of parallel fibers with a massive purplish core (SSX15), and tan grains of oriented, fibrous sussexite (SSX9). Orange sussexite (SSX34), presumably colored by included zincite (Dunn, 1995, p. 642), is present but uncommon.
The North Orebody, described in detail elsewhere, was not a separate orebody but the northern extension of the Sterling Hill orebody’s east limb below 1850 level. It had been located by the early 1930s and explored via a one-compartment winze sunk from the 1850 level in the early 1940s. By 1958 the three-compartment North shaft, with its hoist on 1850 level and working levels at 100-foot intervals down to 2550 level, had been completed. During its short life the North Orebody yielded a substantial amount of ore, much of it easily distinguished on sight from ore found above 1850 level. The NOB’s south limb in particular was heavily altered by hydrothermal fluids circulating along the Zero fault, and the south limb is where many of the best specimens of sussexite, mooreite, “golden” sphalerite, and magnesiochlorophoenicite were found.
Sussexite in both its fibrous and massive forms is readily confused with other minerals. Fibrous sussexite, as noted earlier, is readily mistaken for other fibrous white or near-white minerals, including fluoborite, szaibelyite (the Mg analogue of sussexite), and fibrous amphiboles such as tremolite and anthophyllite. A positive flame test for boron (which produces a green flame) can help in distinguishing sussexite from fibrous amphiboles but not from fluoborite or szaibelyite, both of which, like sussexite, are boron minerals. Massive sussexite in its pink varieties can be confused with massive hodgkinsonite and in some specimens (SSX27) is intergrown with that mineral. Fluorescence has been of little help because our local sussexite had long been regarded as nonfluorescent. More recently, careful scrutiny with modern LW LED flashlights revealed a dim red fluorescence in some specimens of massive pink sussexite and a dim white fluorescence in fibrous sussexite (King et al., 1922), but these properties are not diagnostic. In general, semiquantitative or quantitative chemical tests (to establish Mg:Mn ratio) or X-ray methods are recommended for positive identification. Incidentally, X-ray diffraction peaks of minerals in the sussexite-szaibelyite series have been shown to shift systematically with composition, enabling the composition of unanalyzed specimens to be estimated from the X-ray data (e.g., Takéuchi, 1957).
Franklin is the type locality for sussexite, but Sterling Hill has yielded by far the most specimens. Worldwide, sussexite remains a rare mineral that has been found in small amounts, in its fibrous habit and from white to brown in color, at about two dozen other localities in the United States, Europe, Japan, Africa, Australia, and North Korea.
References
Brush, G.J. (1868a), New borate from Mine Hill, Franklin, Sussex Co., New Jersey - sussexite. American Journal of Science, 2nd Series, vol. 46, p. 140. [Announcement of the discovery of sussexite at Franklin; description followed in Brush 1868b]
Brush, G.J. (1868b), On sussexite, a new borate from Mine Hill, Franklin Furnace, Sussex County, New Jersey. American Journal of Science, 2nd series, vol. 46, p. 240-243. [First description and analysis of the species]
Dunn, P.J. (1995), Franklin and Sterling Hill, New Jersey: the world’s most magnificent mineral deposits: Privately published in five volumes, 755 pp. [Description of sussexite on p. 642-643]
Dunn, P.J. and Bostwick, R.C. (1982), Hodgkinsonite from Franklin and Sterling Hill, New Jersey: a review. Mineralogical Record, vol. 13, p. 229-232. [Establishes that some specimens of massive sussexite from Franklin are a mixture of that mineral with hodgkinsonite]
Edwards, F.Z. (1966), The minerals of Sterling Hill 1962-65. The Picking Table, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 3-15. [On p. 13, a one-paragraph description of sussexite found in abundance in the North Orebody upon reopening of the Sterling mine in January 1962]
Edwards, F.Z. (1968), The exclusive minerals of Franklin/Ogdensburg, N.J. (as of January 1968). The Picking Table, vol. 9. no. 1, p. 11-17. [Removes sussexite from the list of minerals found only in the Franklin-Ogdensburg area]
Frondel, C. (1972), The minerals of Franklin and Sterling Hill - a checklist. Wiley Interscience, New York, 94 pp. [One-paragraph description of sussexite on p. 79]
Frondel, C. and Ito, J. (1965), Sussexite from Sterling Hill, New Jersey. American Mineralogist, vol. 50, nos. 3 and 4, p. 502-503. [First published account of sussexite from Sterling Hill, as opposed to Franklin. Describes grains of sussexite in altered ore as composed of parallel aggregates of fibers and provides a chemical analysis]
Gruner, J.W. (1932), Magnesiosussexite, a new mineral from a Michigan iron mine, isomorphous with sussexite and camsellite. American Mineralogist, vol. 17, no. 11, p. 509-513. [Provides X-ray powder diffraction data for Franklin sussexite]
King, V.T., King, N.E., Betancourt, P.P., Bostwick, R.C., Chin, Peter, Hecht, T.J., Kuitems, S.M., Moritz, Harold, Nemetz, J.D., Nikischer, A.J., Sanford, Stephen, Van Fleet, J.A., and Verbeek, E.R. (2022), The Mineralogy of Franklin and Ogdensburg, New Jersey-A Photographic Celebration. Privately published, 1400 pp. [Fluorescence of sussexite briefly described on p. 27-28; photos of fluorescing specimens on p. 192-193; photos under white light on p. 1103-1105]
Moore, P.B. and Araki, T. (1974), Roweite, Ca2Mn2+2(OH)4[B4O7(OH)2]: its atomic arrangement. American Mineralogist, vol. 59, nos. 1 and 2, p. 60-65. [Briefly discusses aspects of the crystal structure of sussexite in relation to the pH (basic) and temperature (low to moderate hydrothermal) of its crystallization environment]
Palache, C. (1928), Mineralogical notes on Franklin and Sterling Hill, New Jersey. American Mineralogist, vol. 13, no. 7, p. 297-329. [Brief description, optical data, and a chemical analysis of a new habit of sussexite on p. 323]
Palache, Charles (1935), The minerals of Franklin and Sterling Hill, Sussex County, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 180, 135 pp. [Description, optical data, and chemical analyses of sussexite on p. 126-127]
Penfield, S.L. and Sperry, E.S. (1888), Mineralogical Notes; 4. Sussexite from Mine Hill, Franklin, N.J. American Journal of Science, 3rd series, vol. 36, p. 323.
Poitevin, E. and Ellsworth, H.V. (1924), New optical data for analyzed sussexite. American Mineralogist, vol. 9, no. 9, p. 188-190. [Attributes anomalous optical data previously published for sussexite to confusion of that mineral with chrysotile. Provides new optical and chemical data for a proven sussexite specimen from Franklin]
Schaller, W. (1942), The identity of ascharite, camsellite, and ß-ascharite with szaibelyite; and some relations of the magnesium borate minerals. American Mineralogist, vol. 27, no. 7, p. 467-486. [Discusses variation in indices of refraction and specific gravity with composition in the sussexite-szaibelyite series, using, in part, sussexite specimens from Franklin]
Slawson, C.B. (1934), Sussexite from Iron County, Michigan. American Mineralogist, vol. 19, no. 12, p. 575-577. [Announces a new locality for sussexite and notes that the X-ray diffraction pattern of the mineral shows it is better crystallized than the Franklin material. Also notes that neither of two purported sussexite specimens from Franklin in the University of Michigan museum are that mineral]
Takéuchi, Y. (1957), The interpretation of X-ray powder diffraction patterns of the szaibelyite-sussexite series. Mineralogical Journal (Japan), vol. 2, issue 2, p. 78-89. [Provides indexed powder diffraction data and lattice constants for sussexite and szaibelyite. Suggests that the chemical composition of intermediate members of the sussexite-szaibelyite compositional series can be determined from shifts in the positions of X-ray diffraction peaks]
Images