AW: [meteorite-list] RE: Ad ebay meteorites

From: Martin Altmann <Altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Nov 4 14:30:43 2004
Message-ID: <002801c4c295$8703b7e0$b8e850d9_at_9y6y40j>

Yip,

I understood. I just wanted to emphasise, that with the Dhofars the chance
of possible pairings is much lower than with the NWAs and that it might be
possible to find out the pairings later, as there exist the field datas,
which in the cases of NWA are lost (o.k. some finders had bad luck, as the
Nom.Com. gave them NWA numbers although the finds were well documentated).

And, what was more important for me, I just wanted to advice the not so
experienced collector,
that if he or her will have the choice between a NWA and a Dho with data at
the same price, that he/her should prefer the Dho with data.

Main mass - I always thought, everything, which is larger than 50% of the
total known weight (tkw), is called main mass.

Cheers!
Martin
----- Original Message -----
From: "MARK BOSTICK" <thebigcollector_at_msn.com>
To: <koblitz_at_microfab.de>; <Altmann@Meteorite-Martin.de>;
<rendelius_at_rpgdot.com>; <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 4:59 PM
Subject: RE: AW: [meteorite-list] RE: Ad ebay meteorites


> Hello Jorn, Martin and list,
>
> Jorn wrote, "Regarding the ongoing discussion on Dhofar vs. NWA pairings:
to
> me, the pairing
> situation with NWA is a bit like it is with some places in Antarctica -
> hundreds
> of meteorite pieces were picked up in glacial morains..."
>
> I was not making an NWA vs Dhofar case. I do not think I brought up NWA
in
> my e-mails, but rather was commenting on meteorites in high collection
> areas. In the case of NWA, they are not all "collected" there...but
rather
> purchased. My comment was pretty simple. That one can not assume that
they
> have a Dhofar "main mass" that is not paired with another Dhofar "main
> mass", because it has a different number. As I also stated, I do not see
> this as a problem. I think most understand that "main mass" refers to the
> largest piece of that number. I do agree this is somewhat confusing at
> times. But it gets confusing outside of high collection areas at times as
> well.
>
> Examples from my own collection. I have the Veevers "main mass". I think
> most would not call this the main mass, as it is quite obvious the
original
> meteorite, that formed the crater, was much larger.
>
> Another unusual, is Matteo's Tessera in my collection. Lets ignore the
> history for a moment and consider the main mass issue only. I have the
> largest piece from the largest stone, which happens to be the smaller then
> the largest complete stone currently. Is this a main mass? I think not.
>
> We must understand that main mass is more of a collector and curator term
> then a scientific term.
>
> Clear Skies,
> Mark Bostick
> www.meteoritearticles.com
>
>
Received on Thu 04 Nov 2004 12:41:33 PM PST