[meteorite-list] follow-up finds and their documentation

From: Tom aka James Knudson <knudson911_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:18:28 2004
Message-ID: <008701c2d7d1$6148e8a0$4ec643d8_at_malcolm>

Hello John And list, John wrote;

"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 fact that there has been something like six different meteorites found
in the Gold Basin strewn field does not help this situation one bit!

Thanks, Tom
The proudest member of the IMCA 6168









  ----- Original Message -----
  From: John Divelbiss
  To: meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
  Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 9:15 PM
  Subject: [meteorite-list] follow-up finds and their documentation


  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.


  Be gentle,

  John
Received on Tue 18 Feb 2003 11:42:57 PM PST