[meteorite-list] New Campo -Myth Busted?

From: Norman Lehrman <nlehrman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue Aug 24 14:15:51 2004
Message-ID: <20040824181550.31555.qmail_at_web81009.mail.yahoo.com>

Mike & all,

No, I am not implying all are from Chaco. Some are
certainly from Santiago del Estero. I only wanted to
shed a little insight on how and why stories like this
get started and are perpetuated.

If someone tells you theirs are from a legal source,
as you well know, each of us has little choice but to
make a judgement call. There is rarely any recourse
but to accept (or reject) their word. This gets at the
heart of why most of us tend to seek out what we
consider reputable dealers rather than purchasing from
the latest guy who found a burning rock that fell
behind grandpa's barn last night.

I see no problem with the term "new Campo". No one
debates their superior condition (which is probably
the determining factor on them being termed "new").
And some may well come from any part of the strewn
field, legal areas included. It just seems that the
story that goes with them is getting more and more
elaboration and embellishment with time. I find it
interesting to watch this evolution, knowing that all
sorts of collectibles are subject to similar gradual
distortions. It seems a good example to illustrate
the need for healthy cynicism. I'm sure it's not
startling news that not every story deserves blind
acceptance and repetition---

Nothing deeper than that intended by my comments---

Cheers,
Norm
--- Michael Farmer <meteoritehunter_at_comcast.net>
wrote:

> Norm, are you saying that you know that the pieces
> are all from Chaco then?
> I don't know about the terrain, the closest I have
> ever been to Campo is
> Uruguay.
> I have no problem with that debate, again, not a
> problem to me whether there
> are hills or no hills. I do know that the term "New
> Campo" was never
> implying that they were anything other than campo,
> but you cant deny that
> for 50 years, the only campos were ugly rustbuckets,
> and then when the "new
> Campos" came up, they were gorgeous, regmaglypted,
> sometimes with fusion
> crust, a 180 turn from the garbage before, so I
> think they should be
> distinguished with some term, "new" seems ok to me.
> I was just in the Mundrabilla Strewnfield, where
> it stretches over 100
> miles, and mush less of Mundrabilla is known than
> Campo, so obviously the
> strewnfield is huge.
> When I am told the pieces are from Santiago del
> Estero and are legal,
> what choice do I have but believe it? In court,
> without proof, then you cant
> make charges that those pieces are stolen from
> Chaco. Are some? Likely, but
> to charge that without proof is not right.
> Mike Farmer
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Norman Lehrman" <nlehrman_at_nvbell.net>
> To: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>;
> "Michael Farmer"
> <meteoritehunter_at_comcast.net>
> Cc: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 10:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New Campo -Myth
> Busted?
>
>
> > Adam, Mike, & everyone,
> >
> > This is a significant subject, partly in that
> there is
> > a bunch of misinformation regarding new Campos on
> > Ebay.
> >
> > I spent last winter in Chile and Argentina, and
> > although I did not visit Campo del Cielo, I did
> spend
> > time with the family on who's land the principal
> part
> > of the strewn field is located.
> >
> > They affirm what Adam's respondents have reported:
> > there is no "new" area on a mountain side. The
> "new
> > Campos" are indeed simply from greater depth in
> the
> > exact same area as the "old" Campos.
> >
> > There is a reason for the inaccurate claims to the
> > contrary. The strewn field is mostly in the Chaco
> > province which has enacted legislation making
> export
> > illegal. However, the strewn field overlaps the
> > province boundary into the adjacent Santiago del
> > Estero Province which currently has no such law.
> >
> > As a result, to reduce chances of legal problems,
> > exporters are claiming that their material comes
> from
> > a "new" area in Santiago del Estero---essentially
> > equivalent to saying "the fossils I am selling
> come
> > from private land just outside the National Park
> > boundary".
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Norm
> > (http://tektitesource.com)
> >
> >
> > --- Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mike and List,
> > >
> > > I think it is very relevant information and more
> > > importantly it concerns
> > > meteorites. Mike, if you took the time to read
> I am
> > > investigating new areas
> > > to add to my travel itinerary. Others may be
> > > interesting in going there and
> > > should be concerned about things such as terrain
> and
> > > the laws governing such
> > > things.
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > > Adam
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Farmer"
> <meteoritehunter_at_comcast.net>
> > > To: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>;
> > > <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 10:07 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New Campo -Myth
> > > Busted?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Interesting, but what is the point? Are you
> making
> > > a point? Why are you
> > > > worried about Campo now?
> > > > Any why post "emails" with no authors. If
> people
> > > are not willing to post
> > > > their names, regardless of the info, I think
> > > anything they write is
> > > > worthless.
> > > > I dont really care, as I have been sold out of
> > > Campos for years, but
> > > still,
> > > > this is an odd discussion you are making.
> > > > Mike Farmer
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>
> > > > To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 9:52 AM
> > > > Subject: [meteorite-list] New Campo -Myth
> Busted?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Dear List,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to thank those who responded to
> my
> > > inquiry about old versus
> > > > new
> > > > > Campos. I am looking to explore new areas
> and
> > > thought this locality
> > > might
> > > > > have been worth investigating but have since
> > > changed my mind. Below are
> > > a
> > > > > set of responses that best address this
> issue.
> > > The authors would like
> > > to
> > > > > remain anonymous so I left their names out.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ***********************************************
> > > > > Email #1
> > > > >
> > > > > Your "well informed source" is correct on
> both
> > > counts. Illegal
> > > exportation
> > > > > and there are no mountainside finds. The
> terrain
> > > is basically flat and
> > > the
> > > > > strewn field is shorter and wider than
> presented
> > > in Cassiday's various
> > > > > papers. The reports of a specimen recovery
> 70-80
> > > km down-range are
> > > > repeated,
> > > > > but have never been evidenced. The
> difference
> > > between 'new' and 'old'
> > > > Campos
> > > > > is the depth of recovery. Cassiday's
> specimens
> > > recovered 1962-73 are
> > > both
> > > > > 'new' and 'old'. Recovered at depth within
> the
> > > craters are 'new'; those
> > > > > recovered from surface ejecta or from
> farmers'
> > > fields are 'old'.
> > > Repeated
> > > > > irrigation and the use of fertilizers has
> taken
> > > its toll. Cassiday used
> > > a
> > > > > WW2 metal detector in his search. With the
> > > increasing demand by
> > > > collectors -
> > > > > beginning about 1989 - much more powerful
> > > detectors are being used in
> > > > > recovery; the deeper recoveries being more
>
=== message truncated ===
Received on Tue 24 Aug 2004 02:15:50 PM PDT