[meteorite-list] Largest Meteorite Collection

From: Martin Altmann <Altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 21 19:30:28 2005
Message-ID: <00a201c546ca$ef05ccc0$71349a54_at_9y6y40j>

Don't think so.
It is a fact that unknown find datas lead to a lower collector's value.
I even would go further as many little single stones (sometimes from the
same material) were purchased and classified/numbered so that bonus points
for the percentage of the specimen of the known weight shouldn't be added.

I fear you have to open two new rubrics.

Fall
Find
and additional:

Purchased
Desert find
The latter for desert finds with proper data and documentation, where the
rules for tkw and percentage should be modified,
as one can't (yet) compare a 2kg Oman OC with a 2kg Oklahoma find.
Where the Franconia mess belongs to? I don't know.
Uuuuh waht to do with the view Antarctics, which came out?
On the other hand, the CRW Kichinka suggested is not easy to determine.

Martin B. le Bue.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Horejsi" <martinh_at_isu.edu>
To: "stan ." <laser_maniac_at_hotmail.com>
Cc: <bernd.pauli_at_paulinet.de>; <Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Largest Meteorite Collection


> Hi,
>
> I think you might be misunderstanding my point. In reality, if you
> apply NWAs to my scheme of ranking, they will likely be undervalued
> since many of the criteria do not work well with:
>
> Unknown find dates
> Unknown locations
> Unknown TKWs
> Unknown proportion of TKW
> Easily accessed pieces over 1kg
> Lack of any collection documentation
>
> NWAs are important meteorite specimens, and I do own some. In fact, I
> was purchasing and trading with the Labennes for Saharan material back
> in 1996 when they first offered it.
>
> Also, in case anyone remembers when David New offered ad-Dahbubah many
> years ago, he got it from me.
>
> So in essence, I don't think my scheme treats NWAs fairly.
>
> My scheme, my thoughts.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On Apr 21, 2005, at 3:43 PM, stan . wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> As far as NWA, I merely excluded them from my schemes, not from the
> >> ranking meteorite collections. I just did not spend the time trying
> >> to figure out what about them is quantifiable given so many unknowns
> >> with respect to their discovery. If you have a scheme, I'm all ears.
> >> But I will disagree with you if NWAs are treated the same as other
> >> finds.
> >
> >
> > but why should they be exculded?
> > you could argue that the TKW of an NWA might not be easily fixed -
> > with apired stones and newly discovered material comming up for sale
> > at later dates - but then again, do you know with any certainty how
> > much allende, murchison, gibeon, sikote alin, or even park forest is
> > in existance?
> >
> > you might argue that one really might not know where an nwa came from
> > int erms of physical impart site - but thats why they are given
> > numbers associated with a dense colelcting area - but when all is said
> > and done - does it really matter where the stone fell? a gold bar
> > falling out of the sky is worth just as much per ounce if it lands in
> > algeria as it does if it lands in arizona...
> >
> >
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Thu 21 Apr 2005 07:36:24 PM PDT