[meteorite-list] Largest Meteorite Collection

From: Martin Altmann <Altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 21 16:52:41 2005
Message-ID: <000601c546b4$e572f0e0$71349a54_at_9y6y40j>

Hi Bernd, List

I would regard 3 parameters for essential in estimating the rank of a
collection:
The number of locales (I'm still not instructed, what the right term in
English is, locales, loclities, locations, I mean different meteorites),
The number of specimens,
The total weight of the collection.

How those parameters should be weighted, everyone could decide by his/her
own.

The number of locales, I guess, is for me most important - there exist for
sure collectors, who felt in love with a few special meteorites, are
collecting for example all Holbrooks, NWA869, Henburies they can get.

The number of specimens is essential; a collection, which has of each second
locale 3 dozens of specimens is mightier, than a collections, where each
locale is represented by only one piece of a kind.

The weight: A micromount collector can't mess with an institutional
collection, where sizeable samples of the same meteorites are held.

To make a ranking, those parameters are still not sufficient - a ton of
Campo might have the same value or importance like a few grams of Chassigny,
so there is no other way to go into details.

Now to Bernd's points - my suggestions:

01) I answered before - thin sections I would just list as another
specimen...

03) As a purist I would list tectites and impactites as extra collection or
collections

04) tstststsss The desert stuff - as long as they get a name and are listed
in the Bulletin, they are of course fully-fledged meteorites like all others
with "names" too!! The pairing salad - no one won't help anymore.....
Difficult it is with unclassified ones. If one buys a box full of Moroccain
stones from a show, where two third of them supposedly are NWA 869, in my
opinion, they can't be listed as own entries in the collection list.
They should be listed individually but in an extra entry and not be counted
to the number of locales.

05) Suevite and Ries-belemnites I would throw into the extra impact
collection of 03). The others to 07)

06) to 03) (I personally would install a tektite collection, as tektites are
own collection field meanwhile and an impact material collection)

07) Wabar pearls to the tektites or to the impact materials, as you wish,
Tunguska wood to 02)

02) Casts, coffee cups, stamps, (ancient) coins, asteroid models, funny
hats, Nininger museum brick fragments, ringlets of Bob Haag, the unwashed
skin from shaking hands with Aldrin....all this is not part of the
collection itself, should be listed as related items separately and not
appear in the competition, who hathes the largest.

Where, Bernd, is you point 08) :-)
Booooooks, articles ect, bibliography, library - certainly also good to have
on a comprehensive list.

Thus my imagination of giving a short information about your collection
would be:

The Pauli Collection currently comprises 12.345 specimens of 6789 locales
with a total weight of 1.122 kg
and is accompanied by a tektite collection of 452 specimens from 9 different
locales and an impact material collection, wherein samples of 67 craters are
to be found. His library contains more than 98.742 publications about
meteorites.

Nice?
Buckleboo!
Martin


----- Original Message -----
From: <bernd.pauli_at_paulinet.de>
To: <Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:59 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Largest Meteorite Collection


> Matt wrote:
>
> > What determines the "largest in the world". Number of
> > pieces, quality, rare? I wanna know since this title
> > gets tossed around ALOT.
>
> Hello All,
>
> The weak echo or response certainly shows how difficult it is
> to set the parameters that determine the size of a meteorite
> collection. When people ask me "how many meteorites" I have,
> I see myself confronted with these problems:
>
> 01) there are multiple Allende, Nuevo Mercurio, etc. specimens.
> Example: 10 Allende specimens (9 stones + one thin section).
> Now how do I count? Is it *one*, is it *nine*, should I also
> include and count my Allende thin section?
>
> 02) What about plaster casts like Bob Haag's Venus stone?
>
> 03) What about "secondary" products like crater glass, tektites,
> moldavites, LDG? And here the same problem again: there are
> numerous "indochinites" in my collection. Is that just *one*
> tektite if you decide to count them by number?
>
> 04) What about all the DaGs, the Dhofars, the NWAs, the Acfers?
> Example: there are quite a few NWAs in my collection...count
> them one by one or lump them together - all the L, LL, H, etc. ?
>
> 05) What about Putorana, Suevite, Alamo Breccia, Ries Belemnites?
>
> 06) What about Sudbury and other impact-related material?
>
> 07) What about Tunguska bark or Wabar pearls?
>
> Problems, problems, problems
>
> + Best wishes,
>
> Bernd
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Thu 21 Apr 2005 04:58:39 PM PDT