[meteorite-list] AD: METEORITE CLASSIFICATION SERVICE

From: stan . <laser_maniac_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat Jul 15 05:38:33 2006
Message-ID: <BAY101-F12446C2F9A213A7BB24F80F06C0_at_phx.gbl>

>And as for Marvin being in charge of an institution that would grind up
>perfectly oriented Murchisons, you are completely mistaken. He would not
>allow such things to happen, and if you knew him, you'd know that. Don't
>bring other institutions into this, because this is something new. It's
>being headed by a collector. He's not going to make the same mistakes that
>such an organization might make if it were staffed solely by scientists.

why not? you are making generalizations about collectors harming the science
of meteorites. But if you want to talk to Marvin specifically I would note
that he IS hacking up Fukang while preaching about NOT cutting up meteorites
into tiny little bits. A quick visit to his web site shows tiny little bits
of stuff up for sale, including rare types.



>Well, in that case, why aren't you against all museums and 'public' (as in
>government or institution owned) collections in the first place?

because i can see the wisdom of striking a ballance between the two. I feel
that the stated goals of the SWMC step past that ballance point.


>Lifetime payment plan? Don't make me laugh. If one simply was willing to
>wait, they could do it, given time.

how much does the average main mass of a new american iron go for? now how
long is the collector who buys 7$ specimins on ebay going to have to save
for it? yes for many people this may be years - or even never.

besides, wouldnt THIS kind of specimin be best suited for institutional
ownership? if you were worried about the preservation of meteorites wouldnt
you be arguing for people to have only bessy specs and not important pieces?


>No argument there - and why would you ever get rid of them? Wouldn't you
>be
>happier to be paid by institutions for the small amount of material if they
>needed it instead of just being asked to donate specimens? There's a bit
>more incentive there....

SWMC would not be the first or only institution that offers compensation for
specimins.


>Sorry Stan, no one was pulling my leg. I saw them with my own eyes...as
>well as a 3-4kg fairly fresh Acapulcoite individual (which hasn't been
>described yet, as far as I can tell), and a number of other things. Well,
>that one was being kept under someone's bed, so I doubt you saw it, but
>they
>were around...

let me guess, this acapulcoite was in the same room as these fragments of
ureilite? i'm pretty suire i know what stone you are tlaking about there too
and it turned out to be a weathered OC. stuff tends to get pulled out from
under beds to be offered to me ;) just because you saw them with your own
eyes doesnt mean the story relayed here is accurate.


>
>Well, if you know what it is, you shouldn't still be arguing about their
>$ten million. It wouldn't be spent...but you know that, so why am I even
>telling you.

yes i should because A) last time i checked you werent on the board od SWMC
and B) despite what might be said now for the disposition of the money if it
materializes the only people who can control it are those who control it.
Plain and simple I'm concerned about a group who says meteorites need to be
protected from being cut up and sold to collectors, who have a goal of
buying up what they can while they can - who have an awfull lot of money in
the bank.


>Yeah, $ten million in the bank, making interest. I'm not sure what sort
>of interest that amount of money would make yearly, but it's not enough to
>soak up *everything* - *even if that was the goal of the University of
>Arizona, and it isn't.*

no not everything, but enough imho.

>Presumptuous arrogant kid? Fine, call me names, I won't stoop to calling
>you things in return.
>Just don't badmouth reputable institutions in public - especially without
>researching them (or talking to the director for a few hours, as I've done)
>in the first place.

who said i havent done either? thats why i stooped to calling you names
(presumptuous). you badmouthed people who cut up meteorites by suggesting
that you *KNOW* it was only about money. thats where you earned the title of
arrogant.

>And Stan, you seem to be speaking only of absolutes.

amusingly enough i was about to ask you the same thing. 'the center would do
THIS the center would do THAT'

>It's almost as if you
>expect the program to buy up everything they can and then scorn collectors
>who don't sell them material.

no i expect them to buy up everything they can - what they have said they
are setting out to do. as a collector this worries me.

>It won't be anything like that. They *might* buy up to half of a new
>meteorite, but then, that amount's up to the dealer in the first place.

i dont like discussing other peoples business who arent part of a
conversation so I'll keep details to a minimum here. I was recently offered
a specimin by somoene and passed on it as it didnt really fit what i was
looking for. Later on i recived an email congradulating me on the purchase
by someone else. The specimin was purchased and they assumed it was by me.
Turns out it was bought my Marvin and he *DIDNT* just buy half.

I dont know where you think you ahve the authority to speak about their
buying strategies, but regardless of what they might be now my whole point
is a high profile insitution that may sattract a lare amount of finanical
support who's mission statement dictates buying up stuff so it wont be cut
up into small pieces is something that concerns me - because of what they
MAY HAVE power to do. thats it. i dont like unchecked power. plain and
simple. it worries me and it should worry anyone else who has a passion for
collectiong meteorites.
Received on Sat 15 Jul 2006 05:38:27 AM PDT