[meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 19:29:01 +0200
Message-ID: <000601cae953$d376b510$07b22959_at_name86d88d87e2>

Good morning Jason,

I don't know.
Ward's collection ended in Chicago and New York.
The DuPont collection in Chicago too.
Nininger's collection in London and Flagstaff.
Zeitschel's collection in Tokyo
and many examples more.
So we can't be sure, that once the Hup?- , the Farmer-, the Utas-collection
will have a similar fate :-)


>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.

Really?
I think that is somewhat exaggerated. Only cause Joe sliced his stone.
Look we saw just with the WI-fall so many happy finders.
I don't think, that Jim Baxter (and his third stone, the oriented one, is in
my opinion prettier than Joe's find) will ever slice one of his finds.
Neither I believe that Terry ever will sell a stone (note that he even
donated some), nor Ward, nor most of the other finders.

I think that is a similar pseudo problem, like the overestimated number of
meteorite hunters.
Observed falls happen simply too rarely that many collectors would travel to
the places of action, and most falls yield to few stones, that they would
find one to dice. And with mass finds, it is less tragic if some stones are
cut.
(And btw. the more hunters, the more finds, the higher the tkw, the cheaper
the fall, the easier to save a stone from being cut.. isn't it?)

>It's a new generation of quasi-dealers who *don't* traverse the world
>for new falls.
I don't understand, if not, then they don't have any stones for dicing?


>Most private collectors keep horrible records

Really? Or guesswork?
I've rather an opposite impression.

Also regarding the curation it seems to me that all in all private
collectors take somewhat more care. No wonder, as they paid their
hard-earned money for their pieces, so that most of them are highly alerted,
if the first small spot of rust appears on a surface of a stone.
 In many universities there are kept some interesting historic specimens,
but unfortunately meteorites are such an exotic niche of mineralogy and
geology, that in such places they rot forgotten in some drawers, after the
scientist, who once acquired them had left the stage.
And unfortunately due to the cutback of funds, several of the very
well-known museums can't care for their meteorites as it would be good or
minimal standard.


So let's be more constructive.
Jason, what do you suggest, how entire and remarkable specimens could be
better preserved uncut?

Let's check the initial position:

Today institutes often have somewhat limited means.
Anyway for research, due to the better techniques, they need only small
amounts of material. For thin sections and the analyses in general only a
very few grams, to do their work completely.
Therefore they tend to acquire only minor amounts. Understandable, because
instead to buy one large lump, they can work on dozens of different
meteorites for the same money.

And today the museums, which hoarded meteorites for the posterity, aren't
able to buy meteorites anymore, often even not tiny slices.
(Uuh, I remember that once it was for me much more easier to repatriate a
quite rare and historic US-iron-fullslice to the tiny local museum in the
village, where it was found nearby, than to sell to or to swap it with one
of the large institutional US-collections, which hadn't that iron yet.)

Additionally the market for specialized private collectors isn't capable
enough, to take over most of the entire specimens.

Plus - the efforts to find meteorites outside of Antarctica of the public
sector are extremely marginal.

So marginal, that by far most meteoritic finds of our times are produced by
private hunters, collectors, dealers.

A researcher is paid by the state, for doing his research on meteorites and
sometimes also for hunting them.

A private person isn't paid by the public, so he's forced "to make money"
with a part of his finds, to be able to continue to produce all these new
meteorites.

So what do you suggest?

I think, perhaps a simple solution would be, that the meteorite budgets of
the institutes and museums should be partially restored again.

Talking of meteorites doesn't mean to talk of catastrophic sums.

I recently read some prices from the Fine Arts Fair in Maastricht,
Where also museums are buying and collecting art is also a public task.

I found there, that a single Gauguin, and he painted quite a lot of
pictures, would buy all lunaites of the private sector, hence 90% of the
Non-Apollo lunar material in existence.

Huh and an old master from the Netherlands, the name not known among those,
who are not interested that much in art, would buy all HEDs ever found on
Earth, except Millbillillie.

I read some days ago in the "Antarctic Sun" that the annual budget of NSF to
maintain the Antarctic facilities and for all research projects there, is
420 million USD. Dunnoh if the salaries of the meteorite people there are
included there or paid by the universities.
(Don't get me wrong, I think, these expenses are more than justified.)

Why not taking additionally a single per mill, only 0.1% of that Antarctic
NSF budget to build up a fund for meteorite acquisitions?

How many falls we had in USA the last ten years? Eight?
Such a fund would easily have bought them completely and much money would be
left. In fact that wouldn't be that desirable, cause most were OCs, but at
least the best specimens or the main masses could have picked out.
If so, additionally quite all other US-finds could have been acquired, that
desert stuff and virtually all are OCs, hence not that expensive,
- if it would be of national interest.
Oooor, if one would access the hot desert meteorites, the NSF could double
so the stock of the ANSMET collection, including all the interesting types,
within a few years only and without having to find them with own
expeditions.

Honestly, in the research landscape these are really no vertiginous sums.


What would be your ideas?

Best
Martin

  
PS:
> Why would I pay three times what a stone is worth?

I don't know what Wisconsin is worth, as I think, a standard price hasn't
established yet - especially not, cause the hunt is still going on and we
don't know the final tkw yet.

I think, you maybe were not so irritated about Joe slicing the stone,
but rather how fast this had happened.
Admittedly there I agree he should have tried some days more to offer the
stone entirely as he found it.

PPS: laws, just read the last sentence from my last post again, about the WI
stone, then you'll understand, why I connected that theme.
First we discussed about the destruction of meteorites due to Joe's example.
If a stone of a fresh fall is condemned to rot and to decay in the ground,
then it's certainly a worse destruction than Joe did.
And secondly, several of your sentences - at least one could read them so -
seemed to me, that you have the opinion, that meteorite dealers would be
very destructive people, doing harm and damage to the field of metoritics.
Because here in the forum are also reading many new members and people,
having perhaps not yet the insights like you and me,
I simply wanted to express my opinion, that I think that the private sector
is and always was the backbone of meteoritics.
Hence I don't think that that was digressive.
Received on Sat 01 May 2010 01:29:01 PM PDT