[meteorite-list] status of NWA brachinites

From: MeteorHntr at aol.com <MeteorHntr_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 11:06:07 EST
Message-ID: <cb5.487210ca.3666b6ef_at_aol.com>

Greg, and List,

So, does this place NWA 595 in another group (grouplet) or would it be
totally unique and anomalous, being the only representative known from it's parent
body (so far)?

Looking at anomalous irons, we see a list of MANY such meteorites. In fact,
being "anomalous" or "unique" seems, from the collector point of view as
less significant than if a rock is "grouped" with at least 4 other similar falls
into an officially named group.

It would be impossible for a collector to collect one of every group AND one
of every anomalous meteorite. So is this the logic behind a prejudice
against non-grouped meteorites with collectors?

If RARITY was a key factor in values, wouldn't now NWA 595 spike very high
in value above what it was when it was thought to be a Brachinite? It is now
unique. It is now not one of 10 other Brachintes, but it is now 1 of 1 known
of an extremely low TKW from a different parent body.

Is NWA 595 now LESS valuable to science since it is not grouped with
Brachinites?

I would think it is now MORE valuable to science.

So, should it become more valuable collectors as well?

OK, I can kind of see the lack of increased commercial values with anomalous
irons, in that science isn't doing as much research with irons as with
achondrites. And with no thin sections of irons, it is very hard to see or
appreciate unique features that make ungrouped irons "special" or "different."

But with the unique achondrites, and the unique chondrites I think they
should be more valuable. If someone had a unique Silver Dollar, Ferrari, or
dinosaur skeleton it would be worth more, so why not with meteorites?

Of course, as a dealer and as a marketer myself, I can appreciate when a
dealer will "romance" what they have. And when more and more of something
previously (more) rare is diluted (say with a 5th of the same thing being found)
and a new "group" is formed, then one should spin the positive with the "news"
of the new group being formed. ;-)

And, yes, as a new group is formed, there is usually at least one new
research paper churned out to at least announce the occasion and the new name of
the group. So, I can see why all of a sudden some people would want at least a
representative sample from the new group, especially if they are a collector
that collects one from each recognized group.

And the more dealers that are romancing their particular specimen from a new
group the more chatter there is in the community of collectors.

But, in the case of Brachinites, that group has been recognized for some
time, so it isn't really a "new" one.

So, can anyone help me understand this a little better?

Steve Arnold #1
www.SteveArnoldMeteorites.com








In a message dated 12/2/2008 9:16:35 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Zelimir.Gabelica at uha.fr writes:
Yep Greg, you are fully right. I just made a wrong recopy from the
database. Sorry for that. Even if NWA brachinites are not so numerous, it
is easy to make confusions.

Regarding NWA 595, this is new to me, though, as Met. Soc. member, I do
have all the MAPS issues.
Strange that, after this rather official statement (MAPS abstract), nobody
brought corrections to the Met Bull data...

Thanks a lot, yest it greatly helps.

Best,

Zelimir

**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)
Received on Tue 02 Dec 2008 11:06:07 AM PST