[meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 02:23:48 -0700
Message-ID: <v2x93aaac891005010223u2a9a3e36o3aca0c8ef665cc91_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hello Steve, All,
I'm going to say that this is no longer about Joe's find, but about
meteorites in general...Martin's message is replied to below this
post.

> The scientific value in a meteorite is in the information it contains. ?To obtain most of this information, a rock has to be cut, sometimes to the extreme of having thin sections made.

True. That doesn't necessitate the dicing of a meteorite, though.
It's one thing to say that a sample has to be removed for study, and
another matter entirely to completely section a meteorite.

> For centuries, scientists and institutions have been breaking and cutting meteorites to both study AND to exchange.

Sometimes with negligible scientific gains. It's one thing to say
that a piece was removed for study, but...hell, I'll say right now
that I don't think that all of the trading that many museums did in
the past was the best possible thing for the science of meteoritics.
In many cases, museums were trying to build collections, and to get
samples of various meteorites forteh sake of having a piece. I
disagree with that sort of mentality.

> Trading a piece of this for a piece of that, or a slice of that for a slice of this has worked great since the start of collecting these great specimens. ?It didn't take a rocket scientist 200 years ago to learn that it is much more cost efficient to make an exchange and then ship a portion of a specimen around the world to be researched, than it is to ship a researcher around the globe to study the specimen located at one collection.

Well, yes they were great specimens, but...look at what happened to
beautiful meteorites like N'Goureyma, and many others -- just flip
through Buchwald's handbook for *countless* examples. Negligible
scientific gain came from the complete sectioning of those irons, but
it happened anyways.
Scores of beautiful iron meteorites now...slices sitting in collections.

> Not only that, I think there is a valid argument to be made that it is scientifically responsible to part out specimens as far and wide as possible. ?The more pieces that get to different collections, the better, I would think.

That makes sense if you're planning on a disaster destroying valuable
samples, but...that doesn't happen too often. And even if such an
event were to occur, how could it be more destructive than what
dealers do to meteorites today, when cutting turns 1/3 of a given
stone into dust, and the rest into small slices and fragments. It's
about as destructive as you can get.

> And while I'm at it, I want to stand up for the private collectors as well. ?As a whole, I would say private collectors actually do a better job of curating and preserving their collections than, as a whole, all the different institutions.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Very mixed bag, and I wouldn't say that
private collectors do a better job in general.

> Of course there are bad private collectors and there are great institutional collectors.

Most private collectors keep horrible records and don't even have
comprehensive collection lists. I honestly don't understand why you
think this.

> But it is funny how when someone spends some of their own hard earned cash, how they appreciate what they have acquired. ?It is sad in some (not in all, but in some) cases when a hired employee (often a government employee) will not respect what is entrusted to him or her because it is just part of the job.

Oh, such people appreciate them, but in not keeping good records, the
moment they die, their entire collection is rendered worthless,
because they didn't keep labels with most specimens and didn't keep a
thorough catalog.

> Or in some cases an institution will have a great curator who will acquire and go to great extremes to preserve a collection, only for that person to retire, or move to a new employer leaving a great collection behind to be curated by someone else who cares far less for it.

Even when that happens, it's the odd university collection that
'disappears.' Private collections do so all the time, and more to
their detriment since a large number of private collectors don't paint
collection numbers on their specimens of keep a record of what they
have (and where each specimen is).

> I have the utmost respect for most all of the private collectors I have met. ?I feel when meteorites are spread out amongst dozens if not hundreds of BOTH private collections and institutional collections, it is a great thing.

Well, it means people are buying them, if that's a good thing....I
suppose it is for you.

> Yes, of course as an entrepreneur trying to make a buck, it would be wonderful if there were far more collectors that had the desire and the funds to pay a premium for whole stones as they were found. ?My job would be far easier to only have to make one sale as opposed to many.

Right...except you can't find too many buyers for a $30k rock, and you
can get more out of it if you sell it in pieces anyways.

> And on a final note, if something is widely distributed, there is far less of a chance that something bad would happen to all of the material, such as fire, flood, war, theft, earthquake, tornado, mud slide, volcanic eruption, dictatorship, terrorist attack, etc. or even the death of a single individual that might privately hold all of something.

Already covered this -- and this happens so rarely I feel as though
it's hardly worth mentioning. In recent history, this has happened to
a single ordinary chondrite - New Orleans. And no one knows what the
story is with that stone, anyways, so we don't know if it's
safe/intact or not.


--------
Now for Martin's Post
--------

I'm going to address this with a simple post that's not in my typical style.

You clearly didn't read what I posted. If you did, you would know
that it wasn't a 'dealer bashing post' because I note dealers as the
people who do travel, find stones, and sell them for a profit. And
that's fine.

My point was that there is a new generation of "collectors" who don't
travel to Africa to get meteorites. They sit at home until a new fall
happens within driving distance, and then rush to the scene -- not in
the hopes of finding a collection piece, but with the hope of finding
a stone to sell.

It's a new generation of quasi-dealers who *don't* traverse the world
for new falls.

As I've stated repeatedly, Joe has every right to do whatever he
wishes with his find. As to why I didn't buy it...there are other
things currently being dealt with, and...do the math.

Even if he loses a full third of the stone to cutting loss, if he
sells the rest at $60/g, he'll get over $12k for the stone. A 320g
stone from a fall of this size is, at my best estimate, worth about
$4-5k, at the high end.

You tell me, Martin. Why would I pay three times what a stone is worth?
Or would it be more prudent, as a collector, to wait until prices
become more reasonable - or to simply go and find my own stone?

He did the right thing to make money. He'll sell the slices while
prices are still ridiculously high, and make more money than he
otherwise would have. Bully.

I can still say that there are ways to make money that don't involve
cutting up beautiful meteorites, because it's true.

As for the rest of your rant...I won't get into it. You're just going
back to the laws/regulations argument, after I replied to your
off-list fossil post -- and you agreed that our entire argument was
due to a basic difference in opinions regarding national laws...and
then reiterated your original points, etc. Even if what you told me
was true regarding the other German list-members, your response was
enough for me to say 'to hell with it.' There's something to the
methodology with which I reply to messages; I reply to what people
say, and if they're concise, I'll say each thing only once. You don't
do that. You ramble on, repeating things you've previously said,
reiterating ideas from previous posts that I've addressed as though I
never even addressed them. I'm not replying to your long posts
anymore, since all I get in return is more unorganized rambling

I really don't understand why you're bringing this up again, Martin.
Is this your way of asking for another reply to your last message to
me? If so, I won't do it. It's not worth the time.

Jason
Received on Sat 01 May 2010 05:23:48 AM PDT