[meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions

From: Greg Catterton <star_wars_collector_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:44:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <550033.39458.qm_at_web46404.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

As a seller, what is expected of me or anyone else offering material like this?

Should I make it very clear that while I am selling a 1.25g stone paired with NWA 4857 that there is a considerable amount more then the TKW listed?
Would saying its paired with another of those stones be misleading even though they are all paired together?

By not offering more precise info about possible TKW and pairing if I am aware of it, but dont, is that considered bad to not disclose full information available?

I have seen some selling that list a rather nice amount of information while others seem to want to give the appearance that the low TKW is all of that material there is, when in fact there could be as much as 1000x more, just with another number.

Lots of questions, I know... Just trying to get a better understanding of this and expectations from pairing.

Greg


--- On Mon, 1/18/10, Greg Stanley <stanleygregr at hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: Greg Stanley <stanleygregr at hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
> To: zelimir.gabelica at uha.fr, star_wars_collector at yahoo.com, meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Monday, January 18, 2010, 1:20 PM
>
> Zelimir:
>
> So it's possible all the classifications (shown below) are
> from the same fall?? And perhaps from the same large mass?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> > NWA 4857 (Algeria, Shergottite enr maf), 0.928 g in
> collection; tkw:1 at 24 g:
> >
> > ....Paired with NWA 2975 (70.1 g), NWA 2986
> > (170 g), NWA 2987 (82 g), NWA 4766 (225 g), NWA
> > 4783 (120 g), NWA 4864 (94 g), NWA 4878 (130 g),
> > NWA 4880 (81.6 g), NWA 4930 (117.5 g), NWA 5140
> > (7.5 g), NWA 5214 (50.7 g), NWA 5219 (60 g),
> > NWA5313 (5.3 g) and NWA 5366 (39.6 g).
> > Cumulated tkw: 1273.3 g (as per Jan. 2010)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:46:15 +0100
> > To: star_wars_collector at yahoo.com;
> meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > From: Zelimir.Gabelica at uha.fr
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing
> discussion/questions
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > This might be a typical question for Jeff Grossman.
> >
> > I am also continuously puzzled by the abundance
> > of paired meteorites (thus those that are officially
> recognized as such).
> >
> > Let's suppose that once one (or a few)
> > meteorite(s) are selected from an important lot
> > (as found) and sold to someone, this someone
> > (scientist, collector....) would envisage its
> classification.
> > And the same will possibly happen with the other
> meteorites from the same lot.
> > As a result, there will be as many different NWA
> > numbers, as independent classifications (of the -
> probably- same meteorite).
> > As most of these classifications probably won't
> > be concerted, there will not be pairings reported
> > and we will end up with as many different
> > meteorites, most probably of the same type, that
> > will never be suspected being paired.
> >
> > If a pairing is suspected, I believe this results
> > from "concerted" analyses (of either meteorites
> > stemming from the same lot and analyzed by
> > different groups, or of the same meteorites
> > provided by different finders (buyers....)
> > brought for analysis to the same group).
> >
> > This even complicates further if there are more
> > than one such "lot" found (meteorite shower
> > spread throughout a large strewnfield).
> >
> > In case of such "concerted" analyzes, I guess
> > that the labs will still give a different NWA
> > number to each meteorite (or group of meteorites
> > from the same lot) analyzed, because one is never
> > sure that 2 meteorites supposed to come from the
> > same lot are at 100% the same.
> > If pairing is reported, then most of the time
> > (not always) it is mentioned in the Met. Bulls.
> > But because all analyzes were done independently,
> > each analyzed meteorite (or group of meteorites
> > from the same verified lot) will receive its own NWA
> number.
> >
> > Here I realize that, at that stage, it is very
> > difficult to decide to only retain as official
> > the first NWA number attributed chronologically
> > and to cancel all the next NWA numbers.
> >
> > I for one am just happy when pairings are
> > reported. This is often the case for "important"
> > types such as the planetaries.
> > But for the "common" H6's or L5's, I believe this is
> very seldom done.
> >
> > So far, regarding my collection catalogue, here
> > is what I mention (for my NWA 4857 sample taken
> > as an example), just to have an idea of the total
> > mass of that meteorite evaluated so far.
> >
> > NWA 4857 (Algeria, Shergottite enr maf), 0.928 g in
> collection; tkw:1 at 24 g:
> >
> > ....Paired with NWA 2975 (70.1 g), NWA 2986
> > (170 g), NWA 2987 (82 g), NWA 4766 (225 g), NWA
> > 4783 (120 g), NWA 4864 (94 g), NWA 4878 (130 g),
> > NWA 4880 (81.6 g), NWA 4930 (117.5 g), NWA 5140
> > (7.5 g), NWA 5214 (50.7 g), NWA 5219 (60 g),
> > NWA5313 (5.3 g) and NWA 5366 (39.6 g).
> > Cumulated tkw: 1273.3 g (as per Jan. 2010)
> >
> > I know that this neither sheds more light to the
> > problem, nor answers your concerns.
> > Hopefully someone can add more to the issue.
> >
> > My best,
> >
> > Zelimir
> >
> >
> > At 17:09 18/01/2010, Greg Catterton wrote:
> >>I have often wondered and after some discussion
> >>with others I wanted to get the community feeling
> on the issue of pairings.
> >>
> >>If a meteorite say NWA 1877 for example is out
> >>there and more is recovered and verified to be
> >>the same material from the same strewnfield,
> >>should the new material share the NWA number and
> the TKW be updated?
> >>I have noticed many pairings with NWA 1877 and many
> other meteorites.
> >>Same material with different numbers and TKWs
> listed.
> >>
> >>Would it not be in the best interest to have all
> >>the paired samples share on number? This would
> >>surely cut the amount of NWA material by 1000 or
> more.
> >>Why is this not done?
> >>
> >>What is the process for pairing material to share
> the NWA number?
> >>Is it up to the dealer or the person who did
> testing?
> >>
> >>What affect would it have on value if something
> >>with a listed TKW of 200g suddenly was paired
> >>with the 3 other numbers assigned to the same
> >>material and the TKW was pushed to 1kg or more?
> >>Surely it would decrease as supply grew. Is this a
> concern for some?
> >>
> >>I am trying to better understand the
> >>politics/red tape that goes with this area.
> >>
> >>Thanks, hope everyone is doing well.
> >>
> >>Greg C.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>______________________________________________
> >>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
> >
> > Prof. Zelimir Gabelica
> > Universit? de Haute Alsace
> > ENSCMu, Lab. GSEC,
> > 3, Rue A. Werner,
> > F-68093 Mulhouse Cedex, France
> > Tel: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 94
> > Fax: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 15
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > 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
> ???
> ????????
> ?????? ???
> ?
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/


      
Received on Mon 18 Jan 2010 01:44:59 PM PST