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

From: Bob Loeffler <*bobl_at_meteoritecentral.com*> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:54:13 -0600 Message-ID: <DF822BE524DF47EC83F467DF8C6DDC00_at_dell> · bobl_at_meteoritecentral.com

--
Carl or Debbie Esparza
Meteoritemax
---- Bob Loeffler <bobl at peaktopeak.com> wrote: 
> I like the idea of categorizing these meteorites as "hammers", but I don't
> like the definition because "artifact" is way too general.  In my opinion,
> there are many artifacts of human activity that don't deserve the "hammer"
> classification.  Examples: a mound of dirt, or a landscaped yard, or a
dirt
> road, or a "rock garden".  But, if there is a garden gnome in your yard
that
> scares away young children and a meteorite hits it, then the met would be
a
> hammer stone because it is an object that was created by humans.
> 
> Maybe Michael meant "a man-made OBJECT" when he decided to use the word
> "artifact", but there are other types/definitions of artifacts and
therefore
> the confusion.  The word artifact can also be used for the inaccurate
result
> of human activity or technology (e.g. a blip in an x-ray image).  So some
> people might stretch the case of the meteorite landing into a cowpie as
> being an artifact because the cow was not indigenous to the US and people
> brought them here from Europe, so when it pooped, that poop is an artifact
> of human activity.  Yes, definitely a stretch, but that's because
"artifact"
> is too general.
> 
> In any case, Michael coined the term, so it's his decision to modify the
> definition or not.
> 
> I like the term "hammer" (or "hammer stone") only if it's used with a
> description of why it's a hammer.  For example, if an ebay ad says
"Claxton
> meteorite - Hammer stone - 10g", that gets my attention.  Then when I look
> at the description of it, it better say WHY it's a hammer stone.  If it
> doesn't, that dealer goes on my blacklist... or I'm just weary about that
> dealer until they have proven that they are legitimate and not just using
> the term to increase the marketability of the specimen.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bob 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Shawn
Alan
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 8:49 PM
> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question
(hopefully)
> 
> Hi Jason and Listers :)
> 
> Jason, I did get your point and I think your confusing your points because
> what you keep saying has no purpose from a collecting stand point. Ill
> explain.... you said from your last post.....
> ?
> "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." 
> ?
> To generalize is unnecessary? I am confused. So for me to put?something
into
> a category is unnecessary? Well I guess it would be safe to say lets
dismiss
> historic falls as a generalized term, or how about a whole stone or a
slice.
> The fact of the matter is from a collectors stand point these categories,
> or?in your case Jason, generalization, are there for a?collectability
> purposes. 
> ?
> You keep confusions these collectible terms as unnecessary from a
scientific
> stand point. That is true, science doesn't care if its a historic fall, or
> if its a hammer, or if?its a hammer stone, or in your case, if its a whole
> stone. What science cares about is the classification, where the meteorite
> came from, or the chemical makeup. 
> ?
> However, from a historical stand point and collectors stand point, science
> and history plays a very big role in ones collection and how they see fit
to
> collect meteorites. If I only collect hammer falls and hammer stone then,
I
> want to know if the stone hit an animal, or human, or artifact, or a man
> made object and will determine if its worth ?being in my collection. Or in
> your case you collect whole stones. Or someone else only may?collect
> historic falls. ?
> ?
> Collecting is subjective from the individuals taste and wants. There is no
> science behind it, only a rich history , the stories that meteorites tell
> people from where they have been. Or??the previous owner, or if the
> meteorite had hit something or not. To have a category for meteorites that
> have hit an artifact, human, animal, man made object is important in the
> collectability stand point of meteorite collecting. 
> ?
> Many people on the list and around the world use the term hammer stone/
> hammer fall to decipher a meteorite from a collective stand point. If we
> didn't have these two terms, which by you its seems generic and lessons
the
> value of meteorites, it would be hard to put this type of fall into a sub
> category from a collectability stand point.
> ?
> Shawn Alan
> IMCA 1633
> eBaystore
>
?http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_trksid=
> p4340
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question (hopefully)
> Jason Utas meteoritekid at gmail.com 
> Thu Jun 17 17:15:18 EDT 2010 
> 
> Previous message: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question
> (hopefully) 
> Next message: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question
> (hopefully) 
> Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 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 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2917 - Release Date: 06/17/10
> 00:35:00
> 
> ______________________________________________
> 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
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2917 - Release Date: 06/19/10
00:35:00