[meteorite-list] Hammer Question: Rarity

From: John Teague <volgems_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:38:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <15782137.1276817887609.JavaMail.root_at_mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

I think that you meant to say "WhickeyWhickeyWooWoo Stone". Your "WhickyWhickyWooWoo Stone" is a common mispelling, uh, misspelling (I think!?!?).

With tongue firmly in my cheek,

John Teague
Knoxville, Tennessee


-----Original Message-----
>From: Meteorites USA <eric at meteoritesusa.com>
>Sent: Jun 17, 2010 5:53 PM
>To: Michael Blood <mlblood at cox.net>
>Cc: Meteorite List <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Hammer Question: Rarity
>
>Michael, All,
>
>I think we can all agree that a meteorite is a rare thing. A meteorite
>that hits a mailbox, car, house, barn, shed, human or animal is even
>more rare.
>
>Fact: There is a direct, automatic relationship between value and the
>rarity of anything.
>
>Since value is determined in large part, and probably mostly by rarity.
>Wouldn't that fix this debate once and for all?
>
>Who cares "what" you call it? Call it a "WhickyWhickyWooWoo Stone". The
>term Hammer just makes more sense, and describes it wonderfully. I
>understand the opinion that some believe a 'label' isn't needed, and
>argue that it should be described as a meteorite that hit a car, house,
>barn etc. I agree... These people aren't wrong, they just don't
>personally see a need for a label.
>
>I don't think there "needs" to be a label either, but it makes it easier
>to describe when promoting, and Hammer sounds cool too... ;)
>
>Eric
>
>
>
>On 6/17/2010 1:22 PM, Michael Blood wrote:
>> Hi Eric and all,
>> I agree with mouch of what you have said, Eric.
>> Below I post the definition of "Hammer," "Hammer Stone"
>> and "Hammer Fall." These definitions are in no
>> Way ambiguous. The seemingly endless debates seem mostly
>> To focus not so much on fact as on personal value issues.
>> As Stated before, many people will value differently a stone
>> that struck a car than a stone that struck a road, the later of
>> which I place no added value upon, myself, but I recognize
>> that is simply my personal attribution.
>> However, it would appear there are a number of very vocal
>> members of this list who confuse their attributions with fact or at
>> least consider their own value systems as somehow imbued with
>> some mystical power of objective reality.
>> To state, "Hammers just don't really hold any meaning for
>> me, personally," is a statement of opinion and, yes, of course,
>> everyone has an equal right to their opinions. No problem.
>> However, it is a far different matter to state, "Hammers
>> exist only in the minds of dishonest dealers who use it as an
>> excuse to charge more for the meteorites they are offering." To
>> Make the cavalier statement that the area of hammers is a
>> "Marketing Ploy" is insulting to all of us who collect hammers,
>> reflects a most definite egocentric perspective and is nothing
>> short of slander. My personal obsession with collecting hammers
>> long proceeded my marketing of same and my entire approach
>> to marketing was an expression of my passion for this particular
>> aspect of meteorite collecting. To state that it is "nothing more than
>> a marketing ploy" is as ignorant as stating that the only sensible
>> Approach to collecting meteorites is:
>> - if you find them in the field yourself OR
>> - if they are whole stones OR
>> - if the are slices OR
>> - if the are whole slices OR
>> - if they are witnessed falls OR
>> - if they... etc, etc.
>> People may beat this topic to death for as long as they please
>> But 2 elements are objective facts:
>> A) Some people place a higher value on stones that struck humans,
>> Animals or man made artifacts. (This includes the fact that
>> Some people value any stone from such a fall particularly collectable
>> As representative of such a fall, particularly if the actual hammer
>> Stone was destroyed, thrown away or is untraceable - such as the stones
>> That landed in the fisherman's boat in the Chiang-Khan fall - but even
>> When the hammer stone, itself may be available, some collectors value
>> Any stone of the fall as particularly desirable - this is a fact. The only
>> thing about it "debatable" is strictly a personal value issue and not
>> An objective issue.
>> B) The following are facts.
>> DEFINITIONS:
>> 1). "Hammer" - any individual which is part of a hammer fall in which
>> one or more of the individuals struck an artifact, animal or human.
>> 2)"Hammer Stone(s)" - the specific individual(s) that struck the artifact,
>> animal or human.
>> 3) NOTE: Hammer collectors obviously value a "Hammer Stone" more than
>> other individuals in a hammer fall. However, in the case of many hammers,
>> the specific "hammer stone(s) is/are not available. Examples include, but
>> are not limited to: Chiang-Khan in which many stones "rained down" on a
>> fisherman's boat. (one of only 2 hammer falls known to hit a boat?). The
>> fisherman considered the black rocks "evil" and threw them ALL into the
>> river! Still, many of us "hammer heads" value having an individual or part
>> of an individual from that fall. Another example is Burwell, which included
>> an individual that came through an apartment window, bounced off the floor
>> and landed in a lady's tea cup! She is said to have thrown it away! Of
>> course the individual "hammer stone" involved is not available. I have not
>> Been able to track down any of the other Burwell stones reported to have
>> Struck cars and buildings in this fall.
>> (I haven't even been able to trace the small Mbale stone that struck the boy
>> - but we do enjoy having representatives of these falls. On the other hand,
>> many hammers consist of a single stone, so, everyone that collects said
>> hammer falls has a piece of THE hammer stone. Examples include but
>> are in no way limited to Peekskill and Claxton (two of the more famous
>> hammers ever, having struck a car and a mailbox, respectively).
>> Again, these definitions are objective, strait forward and clear.
>> These terms were developed and defined by the same individual. If people
>> don't care for them, they can, of course, develop their own lexicons.
>> If I don't care for Freud's term, "Id" I cannot simply redefine the
>> term. I can develop a different term and define same as, "Similar to Freud's
>> 'Id' but......" But the concept of "id" is clearly defined by Freud and
>> cannot simply be "redefined."
>> Respectfully, Michael Blood
>>
>> PS: I will attempt to refrain from further comment - unless, as stated
>> before, things are said that make me feel like Lewis Black and my head
>> Will explode!
>>
>>
>> On 6/17/10 11:07 AM, "Met. Eric Wichman Escondido"<eric at meteoritesusa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Richard, Michael, List,
>>>
>>> (Sorry if this gets posted multiple times. I sent it yesterday, and
>>> again this morning and it didn't go through, and I added a few points.)
>>>
>>> I understand what you mean. What's important is the "reason" why people
>>> are questioning the definition. More accurately, it's related directly
>>> to circumstance of the fall and perceived value to the collector. The
>>> definition of "Hammer" is broad, but the perception of value is not,
>>> with respect to what someone is willing to pay, based on whatever
>>> man-made object it hits, and the circumstances surrounding it.
>>>
>>> A broad definition itself is meaningless in and of itself, but it
>>> doesn't make the Hammer meaningless because, when it comes down to when
>>> the money changes hands for the stone and the purchase is made, the
>>> buyer ultimately will decide based on the perceived value of the Hammer
>>> in question, and that depends on ALL the circumstances of the fall.
>>> Buyers dictate market not definitions. And this definition discussion is
>>> really about the market. Buyers will determine the value of a Hammer
>>> based on the circumstances of the meteorite fall, the class/type, and
>>> what the meteorite impacted. Obviously if a meteorite hit a road, by
>>> definition below, it would be a hammer, however it wouldn't be worth as
>>> much as say a meteorite which impacted a car traveling on that road. I
>>> think that collectors are smart enough to make that distinction.
>>>
>>> I agree with on the devaluing problem of associating and calling "ALL"
>>> the meteorites from any meteorite fall Hammers, where only 1 or 2 stones
>>> actually impacted man-made structures. I think it's pretty simple and
>>> clear and most would agree that only the stone(s) that actually hit the
>>> man-made structure should be considered a Hammer Stone. Calling the
>>> entire meteorite fall a "Hammer Fall" is confusing I think because
>>> people will make a connection and relate it to all stones in the fall
>>> when that's not the case.
>>>
>>> I'll add that I think anyone who knowingly tries to sell a single
>>> meteorite that isn't an actual Hammer Stone and tries to claim that
>>> meteorite as a Hammer Stone should be ashamed of themselves. People
>>> should NEVER claim a meteorite as a Hammer just because another single
>>> stone from that same meteorite fall is a Hammer. In my opinion if the
>>> dealer doing the promoting doesn't have and promote the actual stone
>>> that impacted the object that made it a hammer stone, then it's
>>> borderline fraud. If the dealer is "CLEAR" in the promotion of the
>>> meteorite for sale and the collector knows the difference between both a
>>> Hammer Stone and a Hammer Fall then that should be fine.
>>>
>>> Associating ALL meteorites from any given meteorite fall with the the
>>> only single Hammer Stone in that fall, is like a car dealer saying
>>> "President Obama Drove This BMW! Z4" when in fact he didn't drive the
>>> actual car on the lot, but one "like it". It's not the same thing, it's
>>> misleading, confusing to new collectors, and in my opinion dishonest on
>>> the dealers part. Again I think collectors will make that determination
>>> with their purchase. In my opinion there needs to be CLEAR distinctions
>>> on what a Hammer Stone is versus what a Hammer Fall is IF both terms are
>>> to be adopted.
>>>
>>> As for the definition of Hammer Stone, in my opinion I think it's obvious.
>>>
>>> Hammer Stone - Any single natural rock which falls "from space" to Earth
>>> and impacts an artifact, human, or animal.
>>> (I worded it this way to dissuade people from jumping on planes and
>>> dropping their meteorite collections on people. ;)
>>>
>>> (Also, this is only my "opinion" of how the definition should read,
>>> based on Michael Blood's own definition. The reason for my suggested
>>> definition is that the term "Hammer Fall" is subjective and needs to be
>>> defined before, if ever, including it in a definition for Hammer Stone.)
>>>
>>> As for those that would argue that the term "Hammer" is nothing more
>>> than a ploy to make a meteorite more valuable. You're right, but only
>>> partly... It IS more valuable to anyone that wants it because it hit an
>>> artifact, human, or animal. Ignoring that circumstance ignores a big
>>> reason why people collect. History and uniqueness!
>>>
>>> It's not a ploy. It's a simple fact! A meteorite that hits an artifact,
>>> human or animal IS "valued" more than a meteorite that just hit the
>>> ground. This is absolutely natural, automatic, and should go without
>>> saying. People that would try to argue this point otherwise is welcome
>>> to try to buy a piece of Claxton, or Peekskill or any other meteorite
>>> which hit something besides the ground, then try to claim it a marketing
>>> ploy. It's a Meteorite Collecting fact, and one big reason why people
>>> collect meteorites in the first place. If people don't care about
>>> meteorite Hammers then they don't have to buy one. If people are upset
>>> because the actual "price" is too high in their opinion, that's their
>>> opinion, and this is mine.
>>>
>>> It's way cooler to own and collect a meteorite that "Hammered" an
>>> artifact/object than a meteorite that only hit the ground.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Eric Wichman
>>> Meteorites USA
>>>
>>> On 6/16/2010 11:10 AM, Richard Kowalski wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Eric,
>>>>
>>>> I think you and I are looking at this question coming from rather different
>>>> directions.
>>>>
>>>> Your post is about valuation of hammers, and my post is about a definition, a
>>>> subject which you kind of give short shrift to by saying we could get too
>>>> "anal"ytical about.
>>>>
>>>> To me, the thing that gets hammered, is irrelevant if the definition is so
>>>> broad as to be nearly meaningless. To also include all the stones in a fall
>>>> as part of a "hammer fall" seems ridiculously broad, to me that is. 100,000
>>>> stones fall, but a single 1g frag bounces against barn, so all the other
>>>> 99,999 have been made "more special" in some way?
>>>>
>>>> If that's what some collectors believe, that's fine with me. Again, that
>>>> isn't my area of collecting.
>>>>
>>>> I agree it is up to the collector to place a value on the hammer, depending
>>>> on what object was struck, where it was located, and the story and or media
>>>> coverage about the strike, but that is a different topic. One of valuation,
>>>> not the definition of what a hammer is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Richard Kowalski
>>>> Full Moon Photography
>>>> IMCA #1081are hammers. That to me is not
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> really a question.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is how much more is a hammer stone "worth" if
>>>>> it hit a shed (regardless of building materials) versus it
>>>>> hitting a dirt road or even a paved road. Colletors
>>>>> will probably not care much if it hits a road unless there's
>>>>> history surrounding it. Now, if the hammer in question hits
>>>>> a mailbox, then it's probably "worth" what someone will pay
>>>>> for it. Simple.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be up to the dealer who sells the meteorite as a
>>>>> hammer as long as he/she explains what the "hammer stone"
>>>>> impacted and the circumstances surrounding it, and then only
>>>>> if the the dealer is honest with the collector/buyer, and
>>>>> the collector/buyer chooses to spend more on it because it
>>>>> hit something man-made would it be worth more.
>>>>>
>>>>> If being a hammer stone means a meteorite was worth less no
>>>>> one would care what constitutes a hammer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The valuation is the degree of perceived importance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Eric Wichman
>>>>> Meteorites USA
>>>>> www.meteoritesusa.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/15/2010 11:52 PM, Shawn Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Listers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now I have a good question about hammer meteorite
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> falls. It is said that a meteorite fall is a hammer fall if
>>>>> it hits something that is man made. Now if a meteorite lands
>>>>> on the surface of a serviced dirt road, a road made by man
>>>>> from dirt, rocks, oil to coat the road, or other processes
>>>>> to maintain the dirt road, wouldn't that constitute as being
>>>>> a hammer fall?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Shawn Alan
>>>>>> IMCA 1633
>>>>>> eBaystore
>>>>>> http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_trksid=
>>>>>> p4340
>>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> 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 Thu 17 Jun 2010 07:38:07 PM PDT