AW: [meteorite-list] Repository of photos...

From: Nicholas Gessler <gessler_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun Nov 21 14:44:11 2004
Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20041121114236.041831a0_at_mail.ucla.edu>

Bernhard,

"Tired of hearing this?"
Not at all!
I need constant reminding...
And I'm sure there are new subscribers all the time as well as old
subscribers whose interests change...

Thanks,
Nick

At 10:55 AM 11/21/2004, Bernhard Rems wrote:
>:-)
>
>I think you will be getting tired of hearing this, but I invested a lot
>of time to create a free repository for meteorite photos at
>http://www.meteoritegallery.com
>
>I know this doesn't fit scientific standards, but hey, it's a beginning
>and could be very useful at least for collectors wanting to know how a
>certain meteorite looks like. That is, if people upload pics there.
>
>All I can say is: USE IT, FOLKS.
>
>Bernhard
>
>-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: meteorite-list-bounces_at_meteoritecentral.com
>[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces_at_meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von
>Nicholas Gessler
>Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. November 2004 19:48
>An: John Birdsell; Jeff Grossman
>Cc: meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>Betreff: [meteorite-list] Repository of photos...
>
>Hi Jeff, et al,
>
>Regarding a repository of photos, I too think it would be
>extraordinarily
>useful.
>To this end, I noticed that Marvin Kilgore has a book in press to
>partially
>satisfy this need.
>It would be nice to have some professional reviews of it.
>Jeff, Alan, are you game?
>Marvin had a galley proof at the Costa Mesa show.
>Perhaps he'd loan a copy for review?
>
>Cheers,
>Nick
>
>At 10:34 AM 11/21/2004, John Birdsell wrote:
> >Hello Jeff and thanks for your email. I think a repository of high
>quality
> >photos of type specimens would be extremely useful for the entire
> >meteorite community.
> >
> >Cheers
> >-John
> >
> >Jeff Grossman wrote:
> >
> >>There are several reasons for this result. Among these are:
> >>
> >>1) Not all scientists are equally skilled at classifying meteorites.
> >>2) Not all samples are representative of the whole. It used to be
>that a
> >>lab would have the entire mass to examine and could see the entire
> >>structure. With meteorites in commercial hands, they often just get a
>
> >>small chip. Given that lots of chondrites and achondrites are
>breccias,
> >>this can be a problem.
> >>3) Some meteorites are borderline between types. Many of us try to
>make
> >>a decision as to which it is, and two people might come down on
>opposite
> >>sides of the line. If it actually matters, somebody will do careful
>work
> >>and publish on the subject. In most cases the error doesn't
> >>matter. Researchers all know that classification errors of this sort
>happen.
> >>4) Nobody has ever standardized the way that brecciated meteorites
>should
> >>be described. Someday this will be fixed.
> >>5) Some areas of meteorite classification are controversial (e.g., the
>
> >>use of type 7).
> >>
> >>We already have a consortium of labs... it is all of those labs that
> >>agree to house type specimens and make them available for research
> >>whenever an important scientific question arises. We already have a
> >>network for data sharing... it includes the Meteoritical Bulletin and
>the
> >>numerous scientific journals that publish abstracts and peer-reviewed
> >>research. If there is a need for a repository of photos, for example,
>one
> >>could be set up in short order. Is there?
> >>
> >>On the question of pairing... for most meteorites, pairing studies are
>of
> >>little scientific interest and not worth taking the time to do.
> >>Visual pairings are almost worthless. For the important meteorites,
> >>pairings get worked out in the scientific literature over time. This
>may
> >>be unsettling for some dealers, but that's the way it is.
> >>
> >>jeff
> >>
> >>At 11:11 AM 11/21/2004, Matt Morgan wrote:
> >>
> >>>Just to add a note...
> >>>There is a fundamental scientific problem of classifying meteorites.
> >>>
> >>>Try sending two pieces of the same meteorite to different labs.
>Chances
> >>>are you will get different results.
> >>>For instance, I have "L5's" that came back as "L4's" and "L6's".
> >>>"Regolith" this and "Primitive" that.
> >>>I heard the same situation happening for NWA 1929, either howardite
>OR
> >>>eucrite. I understand some of it is "interpretive".
> >>>
> >>>The system itself is flawed.
> >>>
> >>>Ideally, we need an NWA consortium of labs to correct this and have
>type
> >>>specimens on hand.
> >>>
> >>>This SEEMS to be an easy fix, but university politics plays a huge
>role.
> >>>
> >>>So all you scientists who study NWA's, how about a network for
>meteorite
> >>>"data sharing"? It will make ALL our lives easier...
> >>>
> >>>Matt Morgan
> >>>Mile High Meteorites
> >>>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: meteorite-list-bounces_at_meteoritecentral.com
> >>>[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces_at_meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Rob
> >>>Wesel
> >>>Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:38 AM
> >>>To: Michael Farmer; meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> >>>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>While I truly believe this practice is ultimately costly to the
> >>>collector,
> >>>truer words have never been spoken. Thanks Mike:
> >>>
> >>>"Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is guilty of
>this,
> >>>we are in the process of correcting the situation and to start people
> >>>MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward as we see
> >>>tonight."
> >>>
> >>>So, for now, we make it right. We follow the rules and pay out to
>prove
> >>>pairings. We wait longer to get to market and costs go up because
>repeat
> >>>lab
> >>>fees and repeat type specimens factor into prices per gram. I don't
>like
> >>>it
> >>>one bit but that's what we do. I will be finishing off my "likely
> >>>paired"
> >>>howardite as such but new specimens are already off to the lab,
> >>>specimens I
> >>>know are paired.
> >>>While I seriously doubt the law has any holding here, the NomCom asks
> >>>this
> >>>of us. Bottom line, if two folks buy bread from the same
>baker...they're
> >>>
> >>>eating the same bread. The full weight of this ruling will soon be
>felt
> >>>by
> >>>all as we bog down institutions who want to study meteorites with
> >>>incessant
> >>>pairings, not much grant money in pairings, not much recognition. But
> >>>this
> >>>is what we do...for now.
> >>>
> >>>Rob Wesel
> >>>------------------
> >>>We are the music makers...
> >>>and we are the dreamers of the dreams.
> >>>Willy Wonka, 1971
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>From: "Michael Farmer" <meteoritehunter_at_comcast.net>
> >>>To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> >>>Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:56 PM
> >>>Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite numbers
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > To clarify something that is obviously causing some problems in
>the
> >>> > meteorite world right now, I want everyone to know that
> >>> > NWA 788, 787, and NWA 482 are numbers that came from rather large
>or
> >>> > meteorites with hundreds of pieces bought during one of my
> >>>expeditions.
> >>> > The Hupes and many other people have the right to those numbers.
> >>> > Now, there are other numbers being widely used without proper
>title
> >>>(as Dr
> >>> > Grossman has stated publicly and with finality that people do not
>own
> >>> > numbers, but numbers are assigned to specific meteorite specimens
>and
> >>>must
> >>> > not be used with other meteorites just because you heard or
>someone
> >>>told
> >>> > you it is the same).
> >>> > Let's all please stop this practice as it is really hurting our
> >>>business
> >>> > and hobby. Virtually every dealer including myself has been or is
> >>>guilty
> >>> > of this, we are in the process of correcting the situation and to
> >>>start
> >>> > people MUST immediately comply or this will just spiral downward
>as we
> >>>see
> >>> > tonight.
> >>> >
> >>> > I perused eBay today and it is still rampant with sellers using
> >>> > numbers
> >>> > they seem to have drawn from a hat. So please ask you seller next
>time
> >>>you
> >>> > buy something, how they got that number, who it was assigned to
>and if
> >>>not
> >>> > them, just how they came to call it that.
> >>> > Mike Farmer
> >>> >
> >>> > ______________________________________________
> >>> > Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> >>> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>______________________________________________
> >>>Meteorite-list mailing list
> >>>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> >>>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>______________________________________________
> >>>Meteorite-list mailing list
> >>>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> >>>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >>
> >>
> >>Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184
> >>US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383
> >>954 National Center
> >>Reston, VA 20192, USA
> >>
> >>
> >>______________________________________________
> >>Meteorite-list mailing list
> >>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> >>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
> >______________________________________________
> >Meteorite-list mailing list
> >Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> >http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
>______________________________________________
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Sun 21 Nov 2004 02:44:04 PM PST