[meteorite-list] Largest collection criteria

From: Gerald Flaherty <grf2_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri Apr 22 08:50:45 2005
Message-ID: <001101c54739$e2b7ee20$6401a8c0_at_Dell>

This is my amateurish thought since I am so proud of my tiny collection that
I want to burst each time think about it! Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: <MexicoDoug_at_aol.com>
To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Largest collection criteria


> Hola List, The largest collection?
>
> Hmmmm. I think how well the collection satisfies you is more important.
> Statistics need to be defined for those with the need to brag or compare
> their
> collection with others. Clear measurements don't work for large. They
> do
> for:
>
> The most represented finds, falls.
>
> The most from a particular geographical area (A NWA collector my snub a
> US
> collector, to each his own).
>
> The most represented duplicate samples..
>
> The most types, anomolous meteorites..
>
> The most massive.
>
> The most atoms, molecules of space rocks (Multiply by Avocado:)s number)
>
> The most valuable (oops, no price guide) Better: The highest insured
> value.
>
> The greatest average weight in the 200, 500, 1000 specimen range
> collections.
>
> The most oriented meteorites, whole individuals, of a type, etc.
>
> The one that takes up the most floor space (that is a competition of
> cabinets)
>
> etc. etc.
>
> The largest means nothing. It is an ambigous construction of two words
> applied arbitrarily in the eye of the beholder. What is important is how
> satisfied the collector is. I had my biggest collection when I got my
> first 1-2
> gram Allende as a gift a long time ago. It has been great, but
> imperceptably
> downhill all the way...
>
> Apples and oranges are hard enough. But when everyone has a bushel of
> mixed
> fruits largest is just an empty boast.
> Saludos, Doug
>
>
> En un mensaje con fecha 04/21/2005 9:14:33 PM Mexico Daylight Time,
> martinh_at_isu.edu escribe:
> Hi Tracy,
>
> When talking about large private collections, in general they really off
> the
> radar of what most collectors think is a large collection.
>
> For example I have the catalog of a collecting friend of mine. The
> collection has well over 1000 location represented with more than 300 of
> them
> witnessed falls.
>
> Many of the pieces are over 100g, and numberous drifting up to or over
> 1kg.
> There are also many main masses, and rather large pieces of ultra rare
> types
> including howardites over 100g and ureilites over 50g. SNCs in the 20-200g
> size and three eucrites over 1kg mixed in with many others in the 10s to
> 100s of
> grams. Twenty-nine carbonaceous chondrites are listed, many over 100g.
>
> Oh,and out of the 1100+ locations, I count only 7 specimens listed as
> from
> NWA or the Sahara. I also only count 3 specimens under 1g.
>
> So I guess if you have millions of dollars and loads of time, a private
> citizen can build a collection competitive with most museums. But for
> many of us,
> we wi
> ll just have to settle for nice regional collections.
>
> But is all this really the point of collecting? Ok, maybe.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tracy latimer <daistiho_at_hotmail.com>
> Date: Thursday, April 21, 2005 6:39 pm
> Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Largest collection criteria
>
>> I'd like to think that I have a fairly good-sized collection from
>> sheer
>> diversity, despite the fact that almost none of my collection is
>> larger than
>> 5 grams. I have over 150 unique falls or finds, mostly in micro
>> specimens.
>> My criteria are very simple: "Do I have a specimen of this find or
>> fall?"
>> Of course, I'd prefer to pick up a micro of Portales Valley or
>> Weston rather
>> than an L6 NWA, but other than that, anything goes.
>>
>> Tracy Latimer
>>
>> >
>> >I'd think that if you are speaking of the "largest", you'd have to
>> measure
>> >the volume of the collection. I'd think a stone slightly "bigger"
>> than a
>> >similar size iron would be co
> nsidered the larger of the two. That
>> could be
>> >problematic though, so you could use the weight of two collections
>> with
>> >simlar stone/iron weight ratios. What was Marvin's...4 tons?
>> >
>> >Anyone have any idea how much Bob Haag's collection weighs?
>> >
>> >If you're talking about most diverse, it would be the number of
>> unique
>> >types of specimens.
>> >
>> >If you're talking about most valuable, then it would require
>> measurement
>> >against a common price list.
>> >
>> >Quality would be much more subjective other than the obvious (a
>> ton of
>> >weathered NWAs certainly wouldn't compare to a ton of historic
>> falls).>
>> >Regards to all,
>> >Phil
>> >
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Fri 22 Apr 2005 08:50:38 AM PDT