[meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices

From: Alexander Seidel <gsac_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 22:36:28 +0200
Message-ID: <20100501203628.53340_at_gmx.net>

He surely deserves a Harvey, Steve, not just by virtue of this single post alone! So let the idea roll. One of the real Oldies and Goodies imho...

Alex
Berlin/Germany



-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sat, 1 May 2010 18:49:57 +0000
> Von: meteorhntr at aol.com
> An: "Martin Altmann" <altmann at meteorite-martin.de>, meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com, meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices

> Martin,
>
> Your last post has convinced me to nominate you for a Harvey Award this
> next year. Are you coming to Tucson by any chance in 2011?
>
> Steve Arnold
> of Meteorite Men
> Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Martin Altmann" <altmann at meteorite-martin.de>
> Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 19:29:01
> To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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 Sat 01 May 2010 04:36:28 PM PDT