[meteorite-list] Ad New Canadian Meteorite for sale

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:57:43 -0800
Message-ID: <93aaac890812071457i56165f5ev76ee01115802bbce_at_mail.gmail.com>

Darryl, Darren, All,

You referred to the low prices mentioned in my email when I had
included Park Forest. If you didn't mention Park Forest, you didn't
refer to my email in its entirety, and didn't clarify. How was I
supposed to know you were only responding to half of my message?

> As it regards the Chergach and Bassikounou examples, I sincerely believe
> that irrespective of how inexpensive initial suppliers sell material, that
> it is incumbent on us to consider the implications of our pricing in the
> marketplace.

So we should place some sort of value on meteorites above what the
finders ask for them because....well, I can see why you as a dealer
would say this -- but from a collectors point of view, your statement
makes no sense whatsoever. Or from a logical standpoint. Why should
rocks have some inherent monetary value? It makes no sense
whatsoever.
That said, if you, as a dealer/supplier decide that they should have
some arbitrary value, and price what you sell accordingly...well, the
final decision rests in my hands, as the buyer. You can ask for
whatever you think they're worth, but unless the collectors on the
other side agree with you, it doesn't matter. Dealers only have the
ability to suggest prices. It's the collectors/buyers who actually
set them.

> I take a longer view of such anomalies. Just because I was offered Chergach
> at $0.50/g doesn't mean that it's responsible for me to widely offer it for
> $1.50/g even though it represents a 200% profit to me.

Responsible? I'd say your fellow collectors would be happy, and
content with the fact that they could afford specimens twice as large
at the same cost as the ones they just bought.

In fact, anyone reading this thread should now know that if they
bought any from you, the reason they don't own a specimen twice as
large is because you thought it would be irresponsible to only take a
200% mark-up.

I'd be pissed-off, big time.

>Whether we can
> quantify the effect or not, beyond cheap meteorites have an effect on the
> rest of the marketplace. They create their own "gravity." That's all I'm
> trying to say.

Oh, I never said it wouldn't have an effect on the rest of the market.
 Though now that you're bringing that up, you seem to be saying that
having lower prices would be a bad thing. Considering that most
people in the meteorite-world are collectors, and not dealers, well,
you're in a minority. By all means, you're entitled to your view, but
you are in a minority.

As to whether or not it's worth, say, $10/g or more...you're entitled
to your opinion as a dealer, and I'm sure that if you get your hands
on some, you'll charge what you like. As said, I, as a potential
buyer, will simply refrain from buying any and voice my opinion that
way...as I'm sure others will as well. I've heard reports that the
tkw could be well over 200kg or more; if, after a mere week of amateur
hunting in sub-zero temperatures and restricted access, 40+kg were
recovered...how much of any fall is ever collected in the first week?
Maybe 10%? Maybe 20?

- Sorry for the lateish reply, but I was at the Bonhams Auction.

Jason

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Darryl Pitt <darryl at dof3.com> wrote:
>
>
> Jason,
>
> Small detail....I never mentioned Park Forest. And speaking of being "at a
> loss for words," I don't quite know how to respond to your unbridled attack
> on "my" point of view regarding the same(?!)
>
> As it regards the Chergach and Bassikounou examples, I sincerely believe
> that irrespective of how inexpensive initial suppliers sell material, that
> it is incumbent on us to consider the implications of our pricing in the
> marketplace.
>
> I take a longer view of such anomalies. Just because I was offered Chergach
> at $0.50/g doesn't mean that it's responsible for me to widely offer it for
> $1.50/g even though it represents a 200% profit to me. Whether we can
> quantify the effect or not, beyond cheap meteorites have an effect on the
> rest of the marketplace. They create their own "gravity." That's all I'm
> trying to say.
>
> All best / Darryl
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 7, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Jason Utas wrote:
>
>> Darryl,
>> Low-end numbers? Even Park Forest which was witnessed, caught on
>> numerous videos, and fell in a densely populated urban environment -
>> in what may well be a majority of cases, hitting man-made objects, was
>> selling for $30/g or so at the time of the fall - a price which has
>> stayed roughly the same, if it hasn't come down a few dollars per gram
>> since then.
>> How much Park Forest was recovered? According to this report, roughly
>> 30kg.
>>
>> http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Aug04/ParkForest.html
>>
>> More of this fall has been recovered in the past week than from the
>> entire fall of Park Forest.
>> It hasn't hit anything interesting, as far as we know.
>> It's an ordinary chondrite - even Park Forest had some pretty
>> brecciation/melt. I've heard of nothing of the sort from this fall.
>> It was caught on video, granted, and that does make it special in one
>> way...why you think that should boost the value of it to twice the
>> value of the undoubtedly more interesting Park Forest, also caught on
>> video (and five or ten times the price of other comparable falls), I
>> honestly...I'm at a lack for words.
>>
>> "Low-end numbers being bandied about?"
>>
>> On the one hand, you seem to criticize the high price being asked by
>> these sellers, and on the other, you say the current market rates for
>> other falls are "low-end numbers?"
>>
>> I don't understand. $5-10/g for these new falls is far overpriced, as
>> best I can tell. At least with Chergach and Bassikounou, suppliers
>> were contacting list-members directly and offering stones at $2/g
>> initially - less for larger stones.
>>
>> You seem to be saying that's too cheap. Why? If the sellers are
>> content, and I don't think the buyers are complaining, well, I can't
>> see any reason for you to say such a thing. If both parties are
>> happy, I honestly don't see how you can say such a thing.
>>
>> Look at the numbers from my last email. A mere $10/g would provide
>> the hunters each with $5,000, assuming they only came back with 250g
>> each.
>>
>> It's classic marketing technique to tell potential buyers that they
>> got precious little out of the fall, as they said they did.
>> If people think there's less, they'll want to buy more. There's a
>> reason they're not telling anyone how much they got, after all. I
>> wonder why...and I wonder if they ever will tell us how much they
>> found/were allowed to keep.... After all, unless they're just using
>> that as a marketing ploy, they really have no reason not to tell us.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Darryl Pitt <darryl at dof3.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times: meteorites as a
>>> collectible do not attract more serious collectors because there are too
>>> many aberrations of valuation--such that the aberrations have become the
>>> norm. Several serious collectors who have been intrigued with meteorites
>>> have shared with me that they've opted not to climb in because of their
>>> belief in an "immature" and "unsophisticated" marketplace. Their words.
>>>
>>> In my humble opinion, the quality of the fireball video associated with
>>> the
>>> Canadian event makes it worth far more than the low-end numbers being
>>> bandied about.
>>>
>>> Everything else being the same, no witnessed fall should ever sell for a
>>> couple of bucks a gram, and we should all strive to make certain this
>>> doesn't occur.
>>>
>>> All best / d
>>>
>>>
>>> =====================
>>>
>
Received on Sun 07 Dec 2008 05:57:43 PM PST