[meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion

From: Michael L Blood <mlblood_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:48:47 -0700
Message-ID: <C40C72AF.1533E%mlblood_at_cox.net>

Hi Martin,
        To me, the important question is how much of this material is
The same fall.
        Michael

on 3/23/08 4:41 PM, Martin Altmann at altmann at meteorite-martin.de wrote:

> In fact, there is also an inconsistency in the last Catalogue of Meteorites
> itself.
> In the header of the entry the tkw of Chiang Khan is listed as 367g
> but in the distribution of the specimens in the same entry are listed pieces
> in a total weight of 3279grams. (Largest amount at UCLA with 2588.4g there,
> and the piece of 800g in the University of Bangkok isn't mentioned).
> So together with the Ex-Haag-piece and Oliver's finds - he's moving at the
> moment, will ask him as soon as he has an Internet access again, how many
> grams in total - we have at least 6kg.
>
> Best!
> Martin
>
>
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Michael
> L Blood
> Gesendet: Montag, 24. M?rz 2008 00:25
> An: dave at fallingrocks.com; mmorgan at mhmeteorites.com; Martin Altmann;
> Meteorite List
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion
>
> Hi Dave & all,
> Regarding your post below....
> My information regarding TKW of the Chiang-Khan fall is from
> The primary finder and author of the web page cited by Martin Altmann:
>
> http://www.meteorite-oliver.com/About_Chiang_Khan/about_chiang_khan.html
>
> Of particular interest is the comment therein:
>
> " Nobody was able anymore to give precise indications as to the exact date
> of the event. Some 20 years ago it was, so they say, in the month of
> November, without doubt - that's what I was told in the villages of the
> strewn field.
> Whatever it was that happened then - one is led to presume a second
> meteorite fall on the same day or on the day after. According to recent
> research (isotope analysis), the two large specimens, which are in private
> Collection and in Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, do not originate from
> the Chiang-Khan fall. They are believed to have been transported into
> Thailand from Laos. Two small pieces from Thailand were analyzed, one is H4
> tending to H5; one was determined to be H5 in Japan, whereas the large
> pieces are H6. Most of all, the noble gas contents of the large specimens
> differ extremely from those of the Chiang-Khan pieces!"
>
> Please note that this is also weighted by the comments by Jeff
> Grossman Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:58 PM
> To: Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] More on Chiang Khan
>
> "The Meteoritical Bulletin does publish
> announcements of new masses when they are
> significant. Submit the report to the
> editor. You will need good evidence that the
> additional mass is really part of same fall."
>
> Please also note that I have every reason to believe that both Bob
> Haag and Matt Morgan believe the piece in reference is part of the
> Chiang-Khan fall. However, this believe might be weighted against
> The above comments (and I acknowledge I could be wrong on this).
> I recognized your reference of source for purchase as "a dealer" was
> Almost certainly intended to protect me from any perception of shenanigans
> In this matter - and I thank you for your intent. However, I was fully aware
> Of all of the above comments and felt confident the major finder and the
> Meteoritical Bulletin were correct in their assessment of related falls,
> just as I am confident there is no intention to deceive, whatsoever, on the
> part of Bob Haag or Matt Morgan and that their belief in the authenticity of
> the stone mentioned is both sincere and reasonable. People will have to
> decide for themselves whom is correct and whom is in error. I sided with the
> primary finders and the Meteoritical Bulletin. I see no way to resolve this
> without individually typing the stone, but even that, like the Baygoria
> cluster.... Er... controversy .... will not be conclusive if this (other?)
> fall was also submitted and originally included as part of the Chiang-Khan
> fall, anyway - but the Meteoritical Bulletin does not see it as such.
> Sincerely, Michael Blood
>
>
> on 3/22/08 6:39 PM, Dave Gheesling at dave at fallingrocks.com wrote:
>
>> Matt & List,
>>
>> First, Matt, thanks for the info and congrats on having that terrific
>> specimen in your already spectacular collection...simply superb.
>>
>> This prompts a second question, which is "Why is there not a means to
>> 'officially' correct the record when a fall or find turns out to have a
>> dramatically different TKW at some point after the formal classification
> has
>> cleared?" I'm not talking about confusion in the early stages of mining a
>> strewn field, but rather about falls and/or finds where in many cases
>> decades have passed since the initial discoveries and, for all intents and
>> purposes, everything that will ever be found has been found (a slippery
>> slope of a generalization, but hopefully this makes sense). There are
> many,
>> many such examples, and I'll post a link to only one below (read Remarks
> in
>> my Djermaia listing):
>>
>> http://www.fallingrocks.com/Collections/Djermaia.htm
>>
>> I purchased my Chiang-Khan from a dealer without much research, which was
>> completely my responsibility, to be clear. That said, it was marketed as
>> representing something approaching 5% of the recovered material from that
>> fall (which, again, is officially recorded as 367 grams when we know that
>> there is one stone of almost twice that size and speculation on the list
> is
>> that the TKW is actually likely to be near 7 kilograms). We had some
> banter
>> about the finer points of orientation a couple of weeks ago and how that
> has
>> an impact in the marketplace, and it seems to me that this is at least as
>> large an issue. And, forgetting the market altogether, shouldn't there
>> perhaps be a more focused effort to "get the record straight" for the
>> benefit of history? I'm probably missing something out of ignorance
> here...
>>
>> Thanks in advance for thoughts and comments...always trying to learn
>> something new.
>>
>> Dave
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
 
Received on Sun 23 Mar 2008 11:48:47 PM PDT