[meteorite-list] AD: METEORITE CLASSIFICATION SERVICE

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat Jul 15 22:45:05 2006
Message-ID: <93aaac890607150618r3a8c56b3jf82189e0febca88a_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hello Stan, All,

Just a heads up - Stan, you might want to read the last paragraph before you
take the time to respond...it'd piss me off if I wrote a long reply and saw
that there.

And now for the issues at hand.

>>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.

Firstly, I'm a collector. I'm not in any way opposed to collecting. If
people want micros, by god, they should be able to roll around in the damn
things. But I say give science their bit first. And if science wants a
little extra, I'd give it to 'em, not because just because they want it, but
because it might do some more good being studied rather than sitting around
in anyone's house.

>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.

And again, you miss my point. He didn't cut up "perfectly oriented
Murchisons" to make those bits - and even I know his collecting philosophy.
What Marvin almost always does is sell half of a specimen and keep the rest
intact. In this fashion, he hasn't entirely kept meteorites from being cut,
but he sure keeps a hell of a lot of them more intact than they would
otherwise be, and for that I applaud him. Hell, if mostly intact is all one
can successfully manage, that's good enough for me.
And as for Fukang...
It's a pallasite. What more d'you want me to say? Looks beautiful inside
and ugly as hell outside. In general, they're an exception in the meteorite
world. Nothing comes close to the contrast between the exterior and the
interior of a pallasite. Furthermore, I'm sure he'll keep a sizable endcut,
but the thing wasn't entirely his to begin with, so I'm not sure where
you're going with this. A large percentage was owned by different parties,
so it wasn't his decision to start the cutting in the first place.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, if he can cut up a portion of it to conserve
a great amount of meteorites for the future, I say do it. You lose one and
gain many - awfully generous of him too, considering that he's donating a
hell of a lot of his own meteorite to make the 'thank you' Fukang
presentations.

>>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.

By offering to pay for what dealers might offer them? They're just asking
for a* fraction* of new and interesting meteorites so that future scientists
might be able to work on them. Is that really too much to ask?

>>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.

Beats me...here's a list of what I've bought with my own money: an oriented
Gao ( http://www.spacerocksinc.com/Feb10.html), which weighed 13 grams and
cost me $13. The tiny cratered Sikhotes for $0.20-$0.30/g. All of which I
could quickly and easily sell to make some money if I saw something
interesting.
I've picked through some piles to find a new Diogenite, ~100g CK (Dean
Bessey - thanks ;), new CV3 from Blaine Reed's NWA 869 bin (I think he'll
laugh if he reads this..we cut it in his room), and a good deal of NWA 801
from various places as well. All of these were purchased at prices not
exceeding $.20/g, going down to $.05/g.
I figure I could convert those into quite a bit if I wanted to. All of the
stuff I can bear to part with'll go eventually I guess (to support larger
things); I think I'll keep the main masses, as they're just sort of cool.
But the rest'll go towards something bigger, should it come along and be
within my financial grasp.
Yeah, I may not have a lot of money, but I'll be able to buy a decent sized
one *of my own* someday. And besides, all of that probably totals no more
than $100...less than $150 in any case...odd how it's worth more than a few
thousand.

>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?

Is it? If someone's willing to leave it uncut, I fail to see the problem.
I don't think collectors with these sorts of morals are nonexistent, do
you?
Well, rhetorical question...I do exist.

>>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.

Nope, but I wasn't saying they were.
How stupid d'you think I am?
Whatever. If you think that's the case, you're arguing with an idiot and
losing, so congrats.
I'll ask again. 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? If you're willing to donate, and they're willing to pay,
everyone wins in the end, no?

>>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.

No, the Acapulcoite was in Blaine Reed's room. And it was pretty fresh -
not weathered, as you state, the stone that you saw was.
The Ureilites were
1) Being carried around one evening by a fellow...Mike Martinez? Could have
been, but maybe I just saw him a lot during the show...sorry, but it was six
months ago....really not sure......
and
2) Outside Mike Farmer's room in the possession of a Moroccan fellow. At
the very least you can ask Mike about that one - he should remember it.

And by the way, don't think I can't very easily recognize a meteorite on
sight. I've found 103 meteorites with a few achondrites tossed in, one of
which has been classified (Superior Valley 014, an Acapulcoite ;)
The point is that I don't think it would be easy to fool me on a stone's
classification if I saw it, regardless of what someone *says* about it. If
nothing else, I'd probably be able to name the group, if not subclass.
And those were Ureilites. Again, ask Mike if you don't believe me.
The "Acapulcoite" was some sort of fine-grained,
free-metal-bearing primitive achondrite...I guess it could have been a
Lodranite or ungrouped, but that just about exhausts the possibilities.

>>
>>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.

A) Last I saw, neither were you. At least I've spoken with a director in
depth about these issues, and have had a short word now with the other
director as well.
B) They state that a portion of meteorites need to be conserved for future
studies, yes. And the $10 mil probably wouldn't be available for spending
if it's to be an endowment...sorry to burst your bubble there, but I think
it would be legally protected.

>>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.

Well, if they aimed to buy everything, they couldn't, and if they only
wanted a fraction of everything, it might be possible...if the dealers chose
to sell to them, as I'm sure you won't. But that's up to you now, isn't it?


>>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.

I badmouthed people? I stated my rationale for collecting. If you think
that simply stating my opinion is badmouthing people, go right ahead an
insult me. Just know that if you do it, you can expect a hostile message in
return. Don't worry, I still won't stoop to names; that was your choice.

>>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'

Yeah, if Marvin was telling me the truth, that *is* what they'd do.
Go ask him if you don't believe me.
Another list-member from the program has told me that I'm doing a pretty
damn good job of describing it's aims, so at this point, I think I'll
continue, as I'm not misrepresenting it.

>>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.

Everything they can? Well, I''ve already stated that they won't be able to
buy everything, even if some freak change of heart takes Marvin.
But what are you, as a dealer, going to allow them to buy? Sell them
nothing...but let others do as they wish. Free country, right? Can't give
someone too much unrestrained power...after all, they might hurt themselves.


>>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.

Well did he buy it for himself or for the program? And did the person who
offered it to you offer Marvin half, the entire thing, or what? Most of the
time, when someone offers you a whole stone, you don't say "no, I'll take
half." It's either a sale or a no-go.
Terms tend to be slightly different if a stone is being submitted
for analysis - as long as it's on the saw, and a piece is being cut off,
it's easy enough to cut a bit more off and sell it, in this case, to the U
of A. And hell, if it's for scientific purposes, so it probably wont need
to be polished, etched, and cut to perfection either.

>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.

Ok. You don't like the idea in general. Well, there's really not much I
can say to that. If you don't like it, you don't like it. My only problem
with this is that you don't like it for reasons that I've already
refuted...that and the names (there might be a list policy somewhere in
there I think, but who knows anymore...nothing about being arrogant in any
case ;-)
I know the intentions of the directors, and personally, I can guarantee you
that the sort of wanton buying of everything in sight that you so fear won't
occur. If that's not good enough for you, I see no reason to continue this
argument, because you don't believe what I'm saying in the first place. I've
spoken with the people in charge, and I'm telling you what they told me.
Don't assume that I wasn't skeptical at first, but that wore off after a few
hours of talking to Marvin.
Again, if you don't believe my words, there's just nothing I can do...go get
a book or something; I have a good one already picked out.

Well, that and a girl to see this afternoon...hehe

Jason



On 7/15/06, stan . < laser_maniac_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >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.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20060715/07fcc346/attachment-0001.htm
Received on Sat 15 Jul 2006 09:18:24 AM PDT