[meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices

From: Warren Sansoucie <warren3174_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:43:07 -0500
Message-ID: <BAY132-W11F34C99A09C1DCB5C6363D3000_at_phx.gbl>

Why all the over-passionate debate about a man in a free country that found a stone and cut it up to sell it?
 
What business is it of ours how he plays with his rock?
 
If someone thought it was so beautiful, they could have offered to buy it and thus preserve it's beauty.
 
It's actually easy to agree with and see all points of view here. Both sides make valid points and both sides are right.
 
It boils down to the owner of the stone doing as they see fit. If you don't like the idea of it being cut, buy it before it gets cut.
 
Warren sansoucie
 

----------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:12:11 -0700
> From: meteoritekid at gmail.com
> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
>
> I wouldn't expect anything less from a dealer, with few exceptions.
>
> The point, Darryl, is that I wouldn't care if it's the largest stone
> or the smallest one - and I know for a fact that there are larger
> stones from this fall that have already been found.
>
> Just...look at those photos. It's a beautiful stone.
>
>> --Meteorites are necessarily subdivided to assist researchers in their work;
>> --No true meteorite lover would thwart such research by preventing the
>> subdivision of their specimen;
>
> Broken side or not, it's a beautiful stone, and it's a shame to see it
> cut. Yes, samples of falls are always required for analysis and
> study, and I'm always willing to give up that share. You imply that
> we're against it.
> And there's a hell of a big difference between giving 20 grams (or
> more) to science and slicing up a stone to sell to collectors.
>
>> --Joe's stone was already subdivided by atmospheric forces. It was
>> incomplete and I do not comprehend why the supposed largest stone needs to
>> be preserved as found;
>
>
> The main justification that I've seen so for for cutting it is that
> 'it's a broken stone - it should be cut anyways.' Two or three people
> have brought this up.
>
> Practically all meteorites are "subdivided by atmospheric forces."
> You seem to be implying that a complete fusion crust would be enough
> to warrant not cutting it. Look at the photographs, Darryl. It's a
> beautiful stone.
>
> I used to be of the mentality that 'if it's not complete, it's not
> worth getting.' But lately, I've been seeing larger fragments of
> beautiful fresh falls, and I've stopped caring so much. A broken side
> on a meteorite is a window into the interior of what's likely a four
> and a half billion year old time capsule. Especially with a breccia
> like this stone...a broken side doesn't detract. Yes, you might get a
> few dollars less per gram. As a collector, that makes it all the more
> appealing to me.
>
>> The
>> comparison of Mineral Point to the Mona Lisa (chasing the alliteration) does
>> not hold up to scrutiny. Meteorites are not paintings---which are typically
>> not cut apart, except by art critics.
>
> The only place I see the analogy actually failing is with regards to
> the fact that science always needs a piece of a given meteorite, so
> you always have to 'cut that corner off.'
> I would argue that we should cut meteorites up about as often as
> paintings are shredded, with few exceptions. If there's scientific
> work to be done, great, cut it. If not...cutting up stones for money
> and so that 'everyone can have a piece'...
> Darryl, you say that cutting stones up for science is a good thing -
> but that's such a vague statement. I agree - samples should be
> available for science, but that's not what happens. Science gets what
> science gets, and the rest gets sold. You can't justify the dicing up
> of large meteorites with "science," because cutting a meteorite
> doesn't mean that more will go to an institution. In most cases,
> dealers give the same small samples to science because they want to
> sell as much as they can.
> I know, there are exceptions. Most cases, though.
>
>> The criticism and condescension exhibited by some meteorite collectors over
>> the collecting or curatorial preferences of others leaves me feeling
>> uncomfortable.
>
> Condescending? I'm not trying to be. I'm legitimately worried by
> this change that's taking place. People seem genuinely more
> interested in the money of meteorites than what got me interested in
> them all those years ago. Do you remember that little kid at
> Butterfields, Darryl? I try to keep him in mind.
>
> And I know, Joe needs the cash. It sucks, and he's entitled to grind
> the stone into dust if he wants to - hell, he'd probably get more out
> of it per gram if he did, selling it in mg-sized samples.
>
> But those photos show a beautiful stone. Broken or not, I wouldn't cut it.
> And it's not going to science, so that's no justification whatsoever.
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Darryl Pitt wrote:
>>
>>
>> I would prefer not getting into this fray, but I believe something needs to
>> be said here. While I also personally prefer complete specimens:
>>
>> --Meteorites are necessarily subdivided to assist researchers in their work;
>> --No true meteorite lover would thwart such research by preventing the
>> subdivision of their specimen;
>> --Joe's stone was already subdivided by atmospheric forces. It was
>> incomplete and I do not comprehend why the supposed largest stone needs to
>> be preserved as found;
>>
>> I am personally in awe of those singular specimens which I believe can be
>> framed as "natural sculpture from outer space." But that's just me. The
>> comparison of Mineral Point to the Mona Lisa (chasing the alliteration) does
>> not hold up to scrutiny. Meteorites are not paintings---which are typically
>> not cut apart, except by art critics.
>>
>> The criticism and condescension exhibited by some meteorite collectors over
>> the collecting or curatorial preferences of others leaves me feeling
>> uncomfortable.
>>
>>
>> Wishing everyone a terrific weekend / Darryl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 30, 2010, at 1:00 AM, Jason Utas wrote:
>>
>>> You don't seem to understand; I don't care about the price; $60/g is
>>> $60/g, and I wouldn't buy any slices for $10/g. Well, at that price,
>>> I might get some to resell, but I wouldn't keep them in the collection
>>> -- it's not what I collect. Prices on this fall will...fall, as they
>>> always do, and they'll likely settle in the $20/g range, as they
>>> usually do.
>>> Prices in the initial few weeks to months are always irrationally high
>>> - that's something I've come to accept over the past few years.
>>>
>>> You're simply advocating collectors' right to a piece of the fall,
>>> which I sympathize with to an extent - yes, I would like a piece too.
>>> But I wouldn't cut up a beautiful 300g stone to accomplish that goal.
>>>
>>> What I'm peeved about is the idea that there are people here who
>>> "love" meteorites and yet who see nothing wrong with cutting a
>>> beautiful stone up.
>>>
>>> They will ask for $60/g for their "dream" stone, and claim that it's
>>> priceless in the next email.
>>>
>>> There's a reason the Louvre isn't taking a pair of shears to the Mona
>>> Lisa, and asking $1million/cm^2.
>>> Yeah, they'd get more than it's "worth" ($4 billion, 81 million at
>>> that price per square centimeter. Ok, maybe it's worth more than
>>> that. It doesn't lessen the relevance of the analogy.).
>>> ...But all you'd have to show for it are a bunch of little bits
>>> indistinguishable from all of the others.
>>> $500/g, $60/g, $0.50/g, it's all the same.
>>> Little slices of rock from a stone that used to be beautiful.
>>> They're worth nothing to me.
>>>
>>> Jeff titled his recent movie "The Wonder of Meteorites." Perhaps we
>>> should look at them with a little more wonder, and a little less
>>> "gotta catch 'em all" mentality. Unless I'm lucky enough to head over
>>> to WI in a month or so with my dad and we happen to find a stone, I
>>> doubt I'll ever own one.
>>>
>>> And I'm fine with that.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Gary Chase wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Now we have everyone complaining that Joe cut up his stone and sold it
>>>> for $60 a gram. WTF? that sure is a lot better than $500 a gram and did
>>>> some collectors a favor by allowing them to acquire this fall at a much more
>>>> reasonable price than "meteoritemen" inflated prices.
>>>>
>>>> Wishing for a second season of Meteorite Men? Be careful what you wish
>>>> for. If you did not like the prices of this fall just wait until after
>>>> season 2 of this train wreck.
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your
>>>> inbox.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> Visit the Archives at
>>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> Visit the Archives at
>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Fri 30 Apr 2010 05:43:07 PM PDT