[meteorite-list] New Campo -Myth Busted?

From: Michael Farmer <meteoritehunter_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue Aug 24 14:24:43 2004
Message-ID: <00f601c48a07$9f4945c0$0200a8c0_at_S0031628003>

Great response, just what this list needs, I 100% agree with you in
everything you said on that one.
People have been getting burned alot on ebay lately, I always tell them the
same thing, if you buy from unknown people, you get unknown service and
product.
Mike Farmer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Lehrman" <nlehrman_at_nvbell.net>
To: "Michael Farmer" <meteoritehunter_at_comcast.net>; "Adam Hupe"
<raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>
Cc: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New Campo -Myth Busted?


> 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 02:24:38 PM PDT