[meteorite-list] Term Main Mass

From: dean bessey <deanbessey_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Jan 19 22:41:07 2006
Message-ID: <20060120034105.46240.qmail_at_web31502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

This topic comes up every now and then and nobody will
ever agree on what is a proper term but my opinion is
that it should be used even though everybody knows
that there are bigger pieces from the same fall.
Like it or not (And this was originally done as a
"best case" scenario given the circumstances) the
meteoritical society created a name for each
individual (Or group) of rocks. In addition to the
meteoritical society, collectors and dealers for the
most part pretty much 100% accepted (If only
grudgingly) this way of doing things. At least nobody
has put up any serious arguement or better idea for
this policy or better way of doing things.
In addition several prominant individuals have in the
past put up extreme pressure and complained in a major
way when somebody was using their NWA number for an
obviously paired stone but not what was a part of the
actual stone reported to the meteoritical society. And
while there may have been debate about this if my
memory serves me right the general consensus (At least
among list members who took part in the discussion)
generally agreed that it was not appropriate to
"hijack" somebody elses number. Maybe not to the point
of fraud, but at least a poor business practise.
This means that everybody agrees that NWA489 and
NWA476 are different stones and it would therfore be
inappropriate to sell a piece of NWA489 as NWA476 -
even though scientific analysis has determined them to
be one and the same (Although the fact that they are
from the same strewnfield and identical classification
says that to).
As a result to say that there can only be one piece
from the strewnfield that can properly be called a
"main mass" would mean that NWA489 would not have a
main mass.
However, there is a "biggest piece" of NWA489. Not the
biggest known piece from the fall but a biggest piece
of what can legitimately be called NWA489.
I dont like the term "secondary main mass" as if gives
the impression that one piece is somehow inferior to
another piece (Which would get fights breaking out
saying "My meteorites are better than your
meteorites).
Maybe the term "Desert main mass" should be coined as
it would make things different from non desert falls -
which has made a major change in the hobby.
But for these reasons I believe every named meteorites
should have a biggest piece "Or, by defination,a "Main
mass")
My thoughts anyway
Sincerely
DEAN



--- Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net> wrote:

> Dear List,
>
> I noticed some dealers and collectors are calling
> pairings that are smaller
> than the largest piece of a pairing series the "Main
> Mass". An example
> would be if an 8 kilogram Martian meteorite was
> called DAG 476. Then
> somebody comes up with a smaller 1 kilogram
> meteorite named DAG XXX which
> was found to paired to DAG 476. Then the dealer
> sells the 1 Kilogram DAG
> XXX as a "Main Mass." I think this practice is
> misleading and dishonest. I
> think the term "Secondary Largest Mass" may be more
> appropriate.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Thu 19 Jan 2006 10:41:05 PM PST