[meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question (hopefully)

From: Jeff Grossman <jgrossman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:17:02 -0400
Message-ID: <4C1ABAFE.5070002_at_usgs.gov>

I apologize for being a bit too sarcastic with this remark. I think
much of the controversy over this and many other matters does come from
the marketing aspects of meteorites. There are many terms in use out
there by collectors which sensible people can probably agree on, and
that most people use in a noncontroversial way. I have commented on
many of these, including "hammer", "TKW", "main mass", "strewnfield", etc.

Jeff

On 2010-06-17 5:48 PM, Jeff Grossman wrote:
> Let's face it... the real definition of "hammer" is any meteorite that
> hit something sufficient to raise its sale price over that of an
> equivalent meteorite that didn't hit something. It is a marketing term.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 2010-06-17 5:15 PM, Jason Utas wrote:
>> Michael, All,
>> You're just getting hung up in the terminology. A collector who
>> collects meteorites that have hit man-made objects is fine by me. But
>> when people start going around using the word "hammer" to describe
>> such stones - and people are taking the liberty of using terms like
>> "hammer-fall stones" to sell stones that haven't hit anything other
>> than the ground...you're just asking for trouble.
>>
>> All I'm saying is that the word itself is unnecessary. It takes a
>> detail about a meteorite and generalizes it - if the stone hit a
>> building, it's a hammer, if it hit a road, it....may be a hammer, if
>> it hit a car, it's a hammer.
>>
>> It's not like we're streamlining things by applying this one term -
>> we're just losing information, and while you say the term "hammer" is
>> well-defined, I would like to point out the debate on-list about the
>> 'hammer status' of a meteorite that hits a dirt road or a
>> plowed/cleared field. After all, a dirt road is about as much of a
>> man-made structure as a leveled and cleared field. Same goes for a
>> dirt dam.
>> So a "hammer" is a meteorite that has fallen on anything that isn't
>> virgin land? I mean...things seems to be a little vague right now.
>>
>> Your definition:
>>
>> "Hammer:" any individual which is part of a hammer fall in which
>> one or more of the individuals struck an artifact, animal or human.
>>
>> Define a "human artifact." Would a road or plowed field be included
>> in your definition? Or does it have to be a smaller sort of tangible
>> object that's been altered by humanity in some way? What if a
>> meteorite hits something like a rose bush in my yard, here in LA.
>> That rose bush wouldn't be here if it weren't for people, and if its
>> remains were excavated from the archaeologic remains of my house in
>> several thousand years, it would be treated as an artifact,
>> because...it is one. That rose is the product of hundreds of years of
>> selective breeding, and wouldn't exist in this climate if it weren't
>> for my grandmother, who planted it, and us, who water it.
>>
>> Or how about the meteorite that hits a plowed field? Again, you're
>> looking at a piece of land that has been substantially altered by the
>> hand of man - it has been leveled, cleared, and fertilized for decades
>> in all likelihood. That piece of land has undergone more alteration
>> than the dirt berm upon which an Ash Creek stone was found - that was
>> just a bunch of dirt piled into a hill.
>>
>> Or how about a dirt road - that's just a strip of land that's been
>> scraped over by a bulldozer. Much less altered than a plowed field.
>>
>> Again, when you start using generic terms to describe things, you lose
>> specificity. When I say that people shouldn't collect "hammers," I'm
>> not critiquing your collection of meteorites that have hit man-made
>> things.
>> I'm criticizing your use of a term that takes the *individual* history
>> of each stone and makes it "a hammer."
>>
>> Chiang Kahn no longer hit a boat - it's a "hammer."
>> Sylacouga no longer clipped Mrs. Hodges - it's a "hammer."
>> And Peekskill didn't hit a car - it's a "hammer."
>>
>> Now do you see what I'm saying? There's no reason to start calling
>> things "hammer" and try to define a new term that is subjective, no
>> matter how much you say it's not.
>>
>> Such practices can be useful - when I see a meteorite, it wouldn't
>> help me for someone to say that, for example,
>> NWA 004 is a meteorite with Fayalite (mol%): 22.2 and Ferrosilite
>> (mol%): 18.6 (12.6-20.5).
>> I can read that, but what means more to me is that because of that
>> information, it is classified as an L4.
>> L4 is what means something to me - not the Fa/Fs numbers. Maybe they
>> will in a few years, but not right now.
>>
>> So when I see you making up a new term to describe something that is
>> already very easily described and doesn't need clarification...I guess
>> you're free to do it, but...I don't understand why you're not just
>> saying "this is a stone that hit a building."
>>
>> Because that seems clear enough.
>>
>> Just say "it hit a boat." Or say "this one was found on the ground,
>> but another stone from this fall hit a building."
>>
>> We'll know what that means.
>>
>> And yes, Michael, there are dealers going around selling things like
>> Park Forest who are saying that their pieces are from a "hammer-fall"
>> and that the pieces that they're selling could have hit a man-made
>> object. Without any sort of verification, I would say that making
>> such claims is nothing but a cheap marketing ploy.
>> If you don't know where the stone that you're selling fell, don't say
>> that it might have hit something man-made when most stones hit nothing
>> but dirt.
>>
>> Or are you going to sell every Junacheng you get as "maybe the stone
>> that fell in the woman's cooking-pot?"
>>
>> Because, if so...it's just a marketing ploy.
>>
>> And Shawn, you missed my point entirely. I hope this message
>> clarifies things.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Michael Blood<mlblood at cox.net> 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
>>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>

-- 
Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman       phone: (703) 648-6184
US Geological Survey          fax:   (703) 648-6383
954 National Center
Reston, VA 20192, USA

Received on Thu 17 Jun 2010 08:17:02 PM PDT