[meteorite-list] Shirokovsky

From: martin goff <msgmeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:28:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKEL=tAs4V8hzCdPWYfLa_yuCbwfWuY+Kr86xNW8Yr5fRHj5dg_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hi Count, Marcin, Adam, all,

I am the happy owner of the slice of Shirokovsky that Marcin posted
photos of and i obviously acquired it in the full knowledge that it
wasnt a meteorite. However it still forms a part of my collection and
i very much like the specimen indeed. As Marcin says this piece really
does show the man made nature of Shirokovsky.

Count, i have not nickel tested this slice at all but as Marcin says
the results after etching are very clear indeed.

Adam, you obviously have very strong views on this but as i said
above, i like this piece and i know of a lot of collectors who also
have very nice slices of Shirokovsky too. You are entitled to your
views of course but i think saying that anyone who has a piece of this
is 'polluting' their collection is a bit harsh. Of course anyone
buying a piece who is made to believe that it is a meteorite is of
course being hoodwinked but if you buy a piece in the full knowledge
of what it really is then there is no issue. I have it on display in
my cabinet as a meteorwrong and it certainly is not 'polluting' my
collection at all! At the end of the day, each to their own and
everyone's collecting habits and acquisition criteria are very
different and that's the beauty of this hobby, everyone does their own
thing within their own budget and even the smallest collection of
micromounts can be very special indeed, If everyone collected the same
way, how boring would that be?! Historic, lunar/Martian, NWA,
micromount, geographic even meteorwrongs are all collection criteria.
Long live diversity within the metorite community!

Cheers all

Martin

-- 
Martin Goff
www.msg-meteorites.co.uk
IMCA #3387

Received on Fri 19 Aug 2011 03:28:23 PM PDT