[meteorite-list] follow-up finds and their documentation
From: John Divelbiss <j.divelbiss_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:18:28 2004 Message-ID: <001101c2d7cd$8ce23e20$23135a0c_at_0m824> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C2D7A3.A33202C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello all, I'm about to ask one of those wandering (also wondering) questions = again...one that probably won't be answered to everyone's satisfaction, = especially mine. Here goes... With all the latest Campos, Sikhote Alins, Kainez, Gao, Gold Basin, and = others (I'm sure) being found these days...what (if any) verification = and documentation is done with these latest finds of known meteorites. = Are finders required/supposed to follow any particular steps to comply = with the rules(whatever they are) of the Society that should eventually = affect the total weights for these known falls/finds. Is the = documentation of these and other "follow-up" finds out of control these = days with the interest of meteorites being so high, and the desire to = find more specimens paralleling that interest? I'm just curious. It = doesn't bother me one way or the other...I just find the issue very = daunting from a documentation point of view. I suppose a newly found Sikhote Alin looks like the ones found years = before...and that most buyers look at it and say that is a SA and would = buy it. Is it documented and added it to a running total? Is it supposed = to be? Campos are also somewhat distinct in their appearance, but I'm = not sure I could tell if one is for sure...if someone asked. The stones = are often distinct in their appearance for a given name meteorite, and = most buyers know what they are looking at...but (for example)some Gold = Basin look just like many NWA's found in recent years. Weathered...and = old looking. The source of supplier is always the key for us buyers...we have to have = trust. The IMCA helps this situation in my opinion. Another key is to = visually recognize the look of a particular meteorite from experience. A = problem with this is that the experience level for recognizing a given = meteorite can have a wide range within a group of buyers. Notice I did not lump NWA's into this because it becomes even more gray = as you look at them...from my simple mind's perspective. However, the = scrutiny is much higher for them than the others...even though the level = of "documentation" maybe the same...none, other than it looks like the = others and were found in the vicinty of the original finds.=20 Be gentle, John ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C2D7A3.A33202C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1126" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Hello all,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>I'm about to ask one of those wandering (also = wondering)=20 questions again...one that probably won't be answered to everyone's=20 satisfaction, especially mine. Here goes...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>With all the latest Campos, Sikhote Alins, Kainez, = Gao, Gold=20 Basin, and others (I'm sure) being found these days...what (if any) = verification=20 and documentation is done with these latest finds of known = meteorites. Are=20 finders required/supposed to follow any particular steps to = comply=20 with the rules(whatever they are) of the Society that should = eventually=20 affect the total weights for these known falls/finds. Is the=20 documentation of these and other "follow-up" finds out of = control=20 these days with the interest of meteorites being so high, and the desire = to find=20 more specimens paralleling that interest? I'm just curious. It = doesn't=20 bother me one way or the other...I just find the issue very daunting = from a=20 documentation point of view.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>I suppose a newly found Sikhote Alin looks like = the ones=20 found years before...and that most buyers look at it and say that is a = SA=20 and would buy it. Is it documented and added it to a running = total? Is=20 it supposed to be? Campos are also somewhat distinct in their = appearance,=20 but I'm not sure I could tell if one is for sure...if someone asked. The = stones=20 are often distinct in their appearance for a given name meteorite, and = most=20 buyers know what they are looking at...but (for example)some Gold Basin = look=20 just like many NWA's found in recent years. Weathered...and old=20 looking.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>The source of supplier is always the key for us = buyers...we have to have trust. The IMCA helps this situation in my=20 opinion. Another key is to visually recognize the look of a = particular=20 meteorite from experience. A problem with this is that the experience = level for=20 recognizing a given meteorite can have a wide range within a group of=20 buyers.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Notice I did not lump NWA's into this because it = becomes even=20 more gray as you look at them...from my simple mind's perspective. = However, the=20 scrutiny is much higher for them than the others...even though the level = of=20 "documentation" maybe the same...none, other than it looks like the = others and=20 were found in the vicinty of the original finds. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Be gentle,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>John</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C2D7A3.A33202C0-- Received on Tue 18 Feb 2003 11:15:33 PM PST |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|