[meteorite-list] Zagora "CR2" & "NWA 801"

From: Robert Verish <bolidechaser_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:54:10 2004
Message-ID: <20020226034816.73056.qmail_at_web10405.mail.yahoo.com>

No, Mike,
I'm not suggesting that we test each stone.

But the question I am asking should be of interest to
you, too.

Say, as in this case with NWA 801, you have gone to
the trouble to get an NWA number AND a classification.
 So, now you know that your stone will appear in the
Met. Bulletin along with its TKW. And now you can
tell your customers that the slice they bought from
you is from this "TKW" in the Met. Bull. This should
enhance the value of your CR2, or at least make it
more attractive to your customers. Your effort should
be rewarded.

But then, you find all your competitors calling their
stones "NWA 801"! They are essentially reaping the
benefits of your efforts. Or worse, the dilution
caused by all their various "NWA 801" stones may
negate the value of your genuine, classified mass. I
would think this would be a concern of yours, as well.


I was only trying to give credit to Dean for how he
handled his "CR2" stones. Yes, I know the Nom Comm
forced him to take a NWA number for each of his
stones. And don't get me wrong, I hate all the
numbers, too. I would rather that we had just one
name for all these "obviously" similar stones, but the
world is too complex and nothing is as simple as it
should be.

But in Dean's case, I think it worked out for the
better. Dean clearly stated that his stones weren't
classified and he used phrases like "probably a CR2",
and "probably paired to NWA 801". Even knowing this,
I still purchased from him one of his "CR2" stones
known as NWA 1083.

So, when I got it classified and it turned out to be a
H3.7 S2 W3 (Fa 24.6+/-7.0%) ! ! !
it was no big deal, because
1) he only said it was "probably a CR2", and
2) he never called it NWA 801.

No harm, because this only effects my NWA 1083.
Now, because it's classified, some researcher may find
it of interest to test some of the other "CR2" stone
and do a proper "pairings study".

Does this "H3.7" classification mean we should test
every one of these stones from Zagora? "No!", I say.
But I would suggest that we be more prudent in how we
apply names and probable classifications to the
meteorites that we are marketing. I think it would
make good marketing sense. In these situations, it
may even be preferrable to agree on one common "trade
name" for all these stones, as opposed to "borrowing"
an officially approved name from the Bulletin.
  
No, I'm not suggesting that we test every stone.
It's just that I learned a lesson (the hard way) -
that an unclassified stone is just that -
it's an UNCLASSIFIED stone!
So, an "unclassified CR2" can be nothing more! ;-)

Bob V.
  
------------------ Original Message ------------------
[meteorite-list] Zagora "CR2" & "NWA 801"

Michael Farmer farmerm_at_concentric.net
Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:09:02 -0600

Bob, are you suggesting that every singe stone needs
to be tested individualy? The CR2 is about the easiest
meteorite to recognize, when I go there and buy them
all from one man, in a batch who shows me where he
found them all, and they are clearly all CR2 pieces, I
assume that they are the same and sell them as such.
If you want each stone individually tested, then I
need to know where to send the 3000 or so Gao pieces I
have and ~500 Canyon Diablos to get them all
confirmed.
I admit that many chondrites can be a problem, but in
something as distinct as the CR2 NWA 801 and the other
#s already assigned, it seems to be a massive waste of
time and resourses to duplicate data that is clear in
a
hand specimen.
Mike Farmer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Verish" <bolidechaser_at_yahoo.com>
To: "Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral"
<meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 4:00 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Zagora "CR2" & "NWA 801"


> Hello Dean and All,
>
> In the eBay auction that Charlie Devine refers to,
> you stated:
>
> "Most dealers are just selling this meteorite as
> NWA801 which is one of the meteorites from this
> strewnfield that has been classified."
>
> If this is true Dean, this could become a big
problem
> for collectors. This could even make the valid
> specimens of NWA 801 (from the classified stone)
> suspect that they came from unclassified stones from
> the same locality. How can we tell the difference?
> At least you, Dean have gone to the trouble to
obtain
> NWA numbers for your stones. But many other people
> aren't concerning themselves with making this
> distinction. Even Charlie, in his original message,
> equated the stone in your auction with his endpiece
> of "this meteorite (NWA 801)" in his auction!
>
> What happens when one of these "NWA 801" stones on
> eBay, (or any of the other "CR2" stones for that
> matter) gets tested, and its classification comes
> back as something other than "CR2"?
>
> Bob V.
>
> ------------------ Original Message ----------------
> [meteorite-list] Zagora CR2 Inclusion
>
> Charlie Devine moonrock25_at_webtv.net
> Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:32:57 -0500 (EST)
>
> Dear List:
>
> Can anybody identify the inclusion in this specimen
> of the Zagora CR2?
> I have an endpiece of this meteorite (NWA 801) which
> shows a 3.5mm x 2mm inclusion that is virtually
> identical, in shape and color, to the inclusion
shown
> in this sample. So I'm wondering.....
>
> See:
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1077561890
>
> Thanks,
> Charlie



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
Received on Mon 25 Feb 2002 10:48:16 PM PST