[meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions

From: Zelimir Gabelica <Zelimir.Gabelica_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:03:21 +0100
Message-ID: <201001182002.o0IK2r7j003408_at_smtpmul2.univ-mulhouse.fr>

My data are taken from the major Dr Irving's
updates of the Martian Meteorites Page and List,
kindly provided in a recent post by Norbert Classen (IMCA):

http://www.imca.cc/mars/martian-meteorites.htm

See more specifically here:

http://www.imca.cc/mars/martian-meteorites-list.htm

I have no reason to doubt about these data so my answer would be "yes".

PS: I very much like the new classification
scheme of shergottites suggested by Irving.
Question: would this get a chance to become official ? (unless it still is ?)

Zelimir


At 19:20 18/01/2010, Greg Stanley wrote:

>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/
>______________________________________________
>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
Received on Mon 18 Jan 2010 03:03:21 PM PST