[meteorite-list] Samples

From: Michael Farmer <meteoriteguy_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:36:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50823.81178.qm_at_web33102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I have to agree, I will not cut a spectacular
oriented meteorite, I don't care what it is. If it is
a chondrite, who cares if it is an H5 or L4, it
changes nothing, little or no science is to be gained.
I am not talking about a large meteorite, I can see
cutting a small piece off of something large, but
these people who cut a 10 gram shield in half to look
at the inside really make me mad.
Michael Farmer
--- Bob Evans <bobe5531 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Don,
> You touched a nerve there. I hate it when I see an
> incredible oriented
> meteorite and then realize that it has been cut or
> ground for a window.
> I ve seen a couple recently that I would love to
> have in my collection and
> was willing to pay top dollar until I seen the cut (
> even on the backside )
> and then the value dropped by 80 % in my eyes.
> All dealers should really know what they are doing
> before they ruin an
> oriented meteorite.
>
> Bob
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Rawlings" <psc2410xi at yahoo.com>
> To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Samples
>
>
> > Doug and listees:
> >
> > I find it amazing that some dealers are only too
> > willing to destroy the beauty of an oriented
> meteorite
> > which is obviously a common type to get it
> classified
> > and then refuse to get a rare meteorite classified
> > because they think it "looks like" something
> someone
> > else has.
> >
> > How is the collector, or his/her heirs, going to
> sell
> > that rare meteorite that was never classified? It
> may
> > seem like a bargain at the time to buy a field
> > classified meteorite but there will come a time
> when
> > it will most likely be considered worthless in the
> > secondary market.
> >
> > Your advise is certainly sound.
> >
> > Don
> >
> > --- mexicodoug <mexicodoug at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Tim,
> >>
> >> OK, I guess the first thing I assumed (and
> possibly
> >> Mike did, too) was since
> >> you called it a fall it was like Gao-Guenie: a
> >> witnessed fall.
> >>
> >> But since you are apparently discussing an
> >> unwitnessed fall from a hot
> >> desert a.k.a. for us, dense collecting area
> (don't
> >> know where else to get
> >> all those Mars rocks), the best thing to do is to
> >> plot the strewn field. In
> >> the contemporary world that seems so difficult
> since
> >> we can't even get
> >> location information for one stone that has
> already
> >> been through maybe
> >> several hands.
> >>
> >> So I only see two options or combinations between
> >> them:
> >>
> >> 1) Don't buy anything that is not documented.
> >> Discourage others supporting
> >> this.
> >> 2) Buy everything under an agreement of trust
> from a
> >> reputable seller and
> >> submit the batch to a scientist and let him/her
> >> minimize the guesswork and
> >> possibly minor tests if doubts come up. Or in a
> >> positive light, to convince
> >> the scientist to say the batch is the same
> material
> >> or cull out what is not
> >> to arrive at the TKW.
> >>
> >> If you want to by Mars without any formal
> >> classification, in the form of
> >> many pebbles, there is no solution except 2),
> >> whether you go it alone or
> >> spread the risk with partners. Because you would
> >> now be representing a rock
> >> that has been subjectively field "classified".
> >> While some people can live
> >> with this, others can't. If you can at least get
> >> locational information for
> >> your specimens, you don't have to give the full
> >> 20/20 - or anything for that
> >> matter if enough to meet the combined 20/20 is in
> >> curation as vouchers for
> >> the group after the naming of your material - if
> a
> >> scientist agrees to
> >> classify and pair it to an existing
> classification.
> >> This is the motivation
> >> of the newer guidelines.
> >>
> >> Some people get mad about subjective
> classification,
> >> because they broke the
> >> ground on the sample and "invested", while others
> >> are pissed that it is
> >> obvious and common sense dictates the material is
> >> what it is (arguments
> >> like, bought from the same trader, got from the
> same
> >> nomad, found together):
> >> with no further support except subjective
> judgements
> >> perceived as strong and
> >> well founded.
> >>
> >> This latter may be true, but that still doesn't
> >> remove the reality. Only if
> >> the specimens fit together can this be foolproof.
> >> Even an expert meteorite
> >> hunter scientist can find or purchase a handful
> of
> >> meteorites in the field
> >> from a known fall and every once in a while a
> >> terrestrial rock can sneak in
> >> that has you fooled like a baby. Let me say it
> has
> >> happened to me, and it
> >> is a very frustrating and humbling experience.
> Some
> >> time I'll tell the
> >> story of a meteorwrong that saw me coming it was
> a
> >> remarkable fraud that
> >> would surprise anyone - the best scientists, at
> >> their first glance,
> >> included.
> >>
> >> So, the reality is also that unless each rock is
> >> carefully studied, nothing
> >> can avoid ocassional duds getting mixed in. Not
> to
> >> mention incorrect
> >> pairing of similr meteorites. Luckily in the
> sandy
> >> desert this isn't as
> >> great a problem as areas with varieties of rocks.
> >>
> >> How Unsettling, How Disagreeable to the innocent
> >> collector and enthusiast,
> >> scientist alike- but true. This is rthe dirty
> >> laundry of meteorite
> >> collecting. Hopefully someone has a better
> >> suggestion, but I wouldn't hold
> >> my breath unless I were an alchemist capable of
> >> ethically transmuting
> >> batches of meteorites ;-) There is no free
> lunch...
> >> and no one can make
> >> promises for something that hasn't been done. (Or
> >> can they?)
> >>
> >> This whole thing gets sticky, when, you buy
> >> meteorites from the literally
> >> same batch that another person has already
> >> classified. Sure: you may have
> >> the same material, but then again, just because
> the
> >> original buyer may not
> >> have demanded 100% error proffing during the
> >> classification and is selling
> >> some stones under the classification he got,
> doesn't
> >> make yours any more
> >> paired to the ones that were used for the typing
> >> work.
> >>
> >> Best wishes, Doug
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Timothy Heitz" <midwest at meteorman.org>
> >> To: "mexicodoug" <mexicodoug at aol.com>;
> >> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:47 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Samples
> >>
> >>
> >> > Doug,
>
=== message truncated ===
Received on Thu 27 Dec 2007 09:36:03 PM PST