[meteorite-list] Hammer fall term (flogging the dead horse with wild abandon)
From: Michael Gilmer <meteoritemike_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:04:45 -0400 Message-ID: <CAKBPJW8ss0rr5t-Kzn8SO_vNrEwvRS3OJ238ptOat29hXCMHjA_at_mail.gmail.com> Hi Gang, Flogging dead equines is my specialty, along with waking sleeping canines. ;) This is long. Those who are tired of this discussion, please hit your delete button now. I'm not saying that every person who uses the term "hammer fall" is 100% innocent of marketing gimmicks. I cannot speak for every dealer, just myself. I use the term. I have used it for years. One of the first things that really interested me about collecting was - different types and hammers. When I was new, I tried to amass a complete type collection. That is a common error many newbies make, because we don't realize what an expensive and difficult process it is to complete a type collection that includes all rare types. So, I eventually abandoned the type collecting and moved over to hammers. I love hammers. I won't pretend to love them as much as Captain Blood, but his website and enthusiasm did influence me. And thanks to the internet, a wealth of information is available about all meteorite falls, including hammers. I couldn't get enough hammers, and I still can't completely slake my thirst for meteorites that hit things. I won't rest until I have a piece of Lorton.....and Grimsby.....and so on. Both of those are unattainable at the moment. But given patience, some portion of those specimens (especially Lorton) may be traded out into the private market - Just like the core section of the Hodges stone from Sylacauga. But I digress. My point is, some of us use the term "hammer fall" to express the following information : 1) the meteorite in question is a fall, and not a find. 2) the fall is an event where one or more stones struck a manmade construct or a living thing. Having said that, if the fall is not a single-stone event, then other stones from that same fall may have hit nothing of consequence. They might have fallen in a field, in a forest, in a desert, on a mountainside, etc. Those stones are *not* hammer stones and should never be referred to as such. The stone(s) that actually did strike something manmade (or living) are "hammer stones". If *any* stone from a fall strikes something manmade (or living), then that fall is a "hammer fall" and all stones from that fall can be referred to as originating from a "hammer fall". However, as stated before, only the actual stones that hit something manmade or living are "hammer stones". This is a simple concept and I don't see where all the confusion arises from. Maybe as a collector and dealer I am too close to the forest to see the trees on this one. I cannot go back in time and look at this as a newbie would. Let's use one of the most famous hammer falls as an example here - Sylacauga. Sylacauga is a hammer fall. It is also a witnessed fall. Given the fact that it set legal precedents and is the best documented case of a human being struck, it may one day be referred to as a "historical fall". But I think the term "historical" is premature for Sylacauga. Let's wait another 50 years or so and then revisit the historical debate for this one. The Hodges stone is a hammer stone. The stone found by Julius McKinney is *not* a hammer stone. Both stones originate from a hammer fall. The usage of the hammer fall phrase does not bestow hammer stone status upon the McKinney stone. The McKinney stone will never be a hammer stone, regardless of what term is used to describe the Sylacauga meteorite fall. We can call it a fall, a witnessed fall, a hammer fall, or late for dinner - but the Hodges stone will always be the sole hammer stone from this event. I think we are the ones making this complicated and we are creating the very problem we are debating by splitting hairs and nitpicking the semantics. Is there really a problem with people being duped into paying more than they should for a specimen because a dealer used the term hammer-fall? How many people have been duped by this? Who are they? Where are they? Is there someone reading this who can come forward and say - "YES, I was ripped off by a dealer who sold me a specimen from a "hammer fall" and I was led to believe that I was getting a piece of the actual hammer-stone, when I actually got a piece of a stone that struck nothing." I know there are some people who are adamantly opposed to the usage of "hammer fall". Mike Farmer has clearly stated that he hates the term and has nothing but disdain for it and those who use it. That much is clear. A few others on this List have also stated their opposition to the term. The opposition has stated that the term is misleading at best and that people (newbies?) will be confused by the term. Ok. I get that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But who is being tricked or confused? Where are the victims of this crime? Yes, someone could be confused by the term. People get confused by lots of things. For example, writers and media people love to confuse "meteor" with "meteorite". We have all seen numerous examples of people confusing those two terms and incorrectly using one to refer to the other. But, where are the buyers who were tricked or confused into buying a specimen because the term "hammer fall" was used? Like I said previously in another post, many meteorite terms are confusing to some people. Terms used to describe the state/condition of fusion crust can be confusing. Terms used to describe orientation features can be confusing. Definitions of "historical fall" can vary. What exactly defines a "historical fall"? Or, what is a "rare type"? Or what is "rare"? What is "pristine"? What criteria define "fresh" or "weathered"? The vast majority of this terminology is subjective when used outside of scientific circles. "Highly shocked"? Says who? S4 or S5 is shocked. Is it "highly shocked"? If so, should we refer to S1 or S2 as "lightly shocked" or "moderately shocked"? Weathered is just like shocked - what is highly weathered, what is moderately weathered, and what is lightly weathered? Some W2 or W3 stones look more weathered than other stones of the same weathering grade. The majority of collectors are not scientists or academics. So should they obey the same peer-reviewed rules that scientists use when preparing abstracts for a conference? I'm not saying they should or they shouldn't. But I do take exception when someone states that anyone or everyone who uses the term "hammer fall" is being deceptive or misleading. In my case, and I can only speak for myself, I use it denote a fall that contains stones that struck something manmade or living. No deception intended. So, what makes a hammer? There is another debate..... Best regards, MikeG -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Galactic Stone & Ironworks - MikeG Web: http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone Twitter: http://twitter.com/GalacticStone RSS: http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516 ----------------------------------------------------------- On 6/12/12, cdtucson at cox.net <cdtucson at cox.net> wrote: > Regine, MikeG, > I hate to beat a dead horse but,.... > There actually could be such a thing as a "Hammer Fall". > Take Carancas for example; > This fall was not only observed but, it hit a man made water well and killed > a couple of animals while excavating a crater. > This fall is generally accepted as a Hammer Fall because we believe it was > one huge stone that crashed and exploded. > So, then the question is; Is this a hammer stone as well? > Of coarse it is. That is IF it was indeed caused by one single stone that > exploded on impact. This is a fact that is in dispute amongst Scientists. > There may have been a swarm of stones that hit at once. We do have evidence > of this in stones that were found that were nearly fully fusion crusted. Had > it been just one single stone where did the nearly fully crusted stones > come from? > This lends doubt that in fact all of the stones are "Hammer Stones". > However, from a sales standpoint. Having one of these ultra rare fully > crusted stones would not be such a bad thing to have. I would think they > would be far more rare and therefore far more valuable to both the collector > (museum) or Scientist for the simple reason of aesthetics and that it does > make for an interesting argument about how many stones did fall. > As for the use of the word Michael Blood coined "Hammer". He could just of > easily have used any number of other words to describe this end result. > Swatter, clapper, striker or anything else one does with an object in his > had while hitting something. > > The other really funny term is the use of the word "Fall" at all. > I mean try to explain that to a newby? I mean after all, Aren't all > meteorites Falls in the true sense of the word. How else could they have > gotten here? > So, the use of this term necessitates an explanation. You have to explain > that not all meteorites are falls. A newby would look at you like you are > nuts. The word " fresh fall" would make more sense but, most of the time the > "Fresh" is left out. Even when a stone is called a "fresh Fall" science can > only determine the time it fell within years not hour or minutes so even > then... If you "find" a stone. How do you really know when it "fell". You > did find a "fall" but was it "fresh"? Or does it just look "fresh"? > Too Funny. > > > Best, > > Carl > meteoritemax > > > -- > Cheers > > ---- "Regine P." <fips_bruno at yahoo.de> wrote: >> Well, I'm referring to an overall suspicious odour when it comes to >> "hammer falls" on sales pages. It is so imprecise - as many other things >> related to it. What comes to my mind right now is that I downloaded a >> small jpg once from a website on hammers when I started getting interested >> in the historic side of meteorites. I was new to the subject and took the >> picture as a genuine photograph of a man from the New Concord area sitting >> on a dead colt which seemed to be collateral damage. I researched my arse >> off only to find out that the photo is not related and the incident most >> likely never happened. The unreliability of the New Concord horse kill has >> been discussed several times on the list in the meantime, yet the picture >> is still on the website. I hear you say these things are completely >> unrelated, and perhaps they are. And in the end this might all be peanuts >> even. Actually, right now, I ask myself what the heck I'm doing here. I >> actually enjoy doing >> the detective work on which account is true and which is doubtful! But >> why anyone actively wants to play a part in the confusion other than to >> cash in is a mystery to me. >> >> Enough said, Best wishes, >> >> Regine >> >> >> >> >________________________________ >> > Von: Michael Gilmer <meteoritemike at gmail.com> >> >An: Regine P. <fips_bruno at yahoo.de> >> >CC: Meteorite List <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> >> >Gesendet: 20:20 Dienstag, 12.Juni 2012 >> >Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Hammer fall term >> > >> >Hi Regine, >> > >> >I can't argue that point. I can only say that we (as meteorite buffs) >> >should do our best to educate the newbies, or make resources available >> >that will educate the newbies. I think many of us do that. I also >> >think we could do better if we really tried. But I don't think >> >everyone who uses the term "hammer fall" is engaging in marketing or >> >trying to mislead people for financial gain. Maybe some dealers do >> >that. If they do, I don't agree with that and they should stop. But >> >the term "hammer fall" probably isn't going away, and if it does, it >> >will be replaced by another term that means the same thing. >> > >> >And we can't excuse people for making rash purchases. The buyer does >> >bear some responsibility to educate themselves before spending money >> >on a meteorite (or anything). I guess this gets back to some of the >> >most fundamental lessons of collecting things. Do one's homework. >> >Buyer beware. Know your seller. Check references (or feedback). :) >> > >> >Best regards, >> > >> >MikeG >> > >> >-- >> >----------------------------------------------------------- >> >Galactic Stone & Ironworks - MikeG >> > >> >Web: http://www.galactic-stone.com >> >Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone >> >Twitter: http://twitter.com/GalacticStone >> >RSS: http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516 >> >----------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> >On 6/12/12, Regine P. <fips_bruno at yahoo.de> wrote: >> >> But what if said police chief won the lottery and would like to >> >> purchase the >> >> crumbs because the thing fell in his town? >> >> Of course the term is not that confusing to meteorite buffs, but to >> >> new >> >> collectors or people who just want to own the one rock from space. >> >> >> >> Cheers, Regine >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Urspr?ngliche Message ----- >> >>> Von: Michael Gilmer <meteoritemike at gmail.com> >> >>> An: Regine P. <fips_bruno at yahoo.de> >> >>> CC: Meteorite List <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> >> >>> Gesendet: 19:27 Dienstag, 12.Juni 2012 >> >>> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Hammer fall term >> >>> >> >>> Hi Regine, >> >>> >> >>> I agree in principle with what you are saying here, I really do. No >> >>> meteorite fall should ever be pigeon-holed or categorized solely >> >>> because a stone struck something, and therefore that stone has a >> >>> higher financial value. That completely defeats the purpose of >> >>> collecting meteorites. >> >>> >> >>> Let me clarify a few of the points you raised : >> >>> >> >>> " agree with the "hammer fall" term being misleading, and so far >> >>> haven't met >> >>>> anyone who is very fond of it >> >>>> except those who actually see it as a market opportunity." >> >>> >> >>> I know of several collectors who use it, and they are not dealers and >> >>> have no financial interest in using the term "hammer fall". Before I >> >>> became a dealer, I was using it to describe my personal specimens. I >> >>> still use it because of what it means to me, and some other >> >>> collectors, not because it is marketing. Maybe others use it for >> >>> marketing purposes - I would not argue against that. >> >>> >> >>> "On the flip >> >>>> side I have met a few who were seriously confused by the term: The >> >>>> Sylacauga police chief for example, who sent me a link to an Ebay >> >>>> auction, thinking the speck pictured was a piece of the rock which >> >>>> hit >> >>>> Mrs. Hodges " >> >>> >> >>> I would expect our dear police chief to be confused - he is not a >> >>> meteorite collector, he is a policeman. Police officers use lots of >> >>> terminology that is confusing to people who are not a part of the >> >>> law-enforcement community. Criminals are often referred to as >> >>> "actors" - that is confusing to me. Is a man a bank robber, or is he >> >>> pretending to be one? >> >>> >> >>> " "Hammer fall" on the other hand is simply a sales term which >> >>>> does the opposite of creating historical awareness: It completely >> >>>> overshadows all the other aspects (historical or other) of a >> >>>> meteorite >> >>>> shower." >> >>> >> >>> I suppose it could, for some people. I don't see it that way. >> >>> >> >>> " I'd find it fairly irritating if anyone used the term >> >>> "L'Aigle >> >>>> hammer fall", because one of the pieces (presumably) hit a man on >> >>>> the >> >>>> arm. " >> >>> >> >>> I agree 100%. In my mind, L'Aigle is a "historical fall" if one >> >>> must >> >>> label it. L'Aigle will always have supreme importance that goes far >> >>> beyond anything (or person) that may have been struck by a stone. Of >> >>> course, it's still a "hammer fall" to some collectors, but I think >> >>> most hammer-heads would agree that L'Aigle is a fall of great >> >>> historical importance first, and a "hammer fall" in the least. >> >>> >> >>> " A more recent example is Sutter's Mill - is it an important fall >> >>>> because one of the rocks struck a garage door? " >> >>> >> >>> Indeed not. Sutter's Mill is not defined as a hammer, and never >> >>> should be. But, to some collectors, the stone that struck Officer >> >>> Matin's garage has additional value because it did strike a mandmade >> >>> construct. Of course, this additional value is entirely secondary to >> >>> the real value of the fall, which is scientific first, cultural >> >>> second, and hammer a distant third (if at all). >> >>> >> >>> I agree completely with your sentiment here. But to say that a >> >>> segment of the collector community is engaging solely in shameless >> >>> and >> >>> misleading marketing because we choose to use a certain term to >> >>> describe a fall is not true. We can strike the term "hammer fall" >> >>> from human memory forever, and that does not change the fact that a >> >>> Sutter's Mill stone struck a garage, or a Park Forest stone >> >>> penetrated >> >>> a house. Somebody will come along and create another term to >> >>> delineate such falls from a fall like Tamdakt that fell in a remote >> >>> area. That new term may or may not sound like "hammer fall", but the >> >>> meaning will be the same. And people would then argue over the >> >>> semantics of it. >> >>> >> >>> Best regards, >> >>> >> >>> MikeG >> >>> -- >> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> Galactic Stone & Ironworks - MikeG >> >>> >> >>> Web: http://www.galactic-stone.com >> >>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone >> >>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/GalacticStone >> >>> RSS: http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516 >> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 6/12/12, Regine P. <fips_bruno at yahoo.de> wrote: >> >>>> Sorry to come up with the subject >> >>>> matter again, but I keep thinking about this every now and then and >> >>>> would like to add my two cents on it this time. >> >>>> >> >>>> I agree with the "hammer fall" term being misleading, and so far >> >>> haven't met >> >>>> anyone who is very fond of it >> >>>> except those who actually see it as a market opportunity. On the >> >>>> flip >> >>>> side I have met a few who were seriously confused by the term: The >> >>>> Sylacauga police chief for example, who sent me a link to an Ebay >> >>>> auction, thinking the speck pictured was a piece of the rock which >> >>>> hit >> >>>> Mrs. Hodges (it was instead part of the one found by Julius >> >>>> McKinney, >> >>>> which has an interesting story by itself and, as far as I'm >> >>>> concerned, >> >>>> deserves more attention than a footnote). >> >>>> >> >>>> I'm quite keen on the stories >> >>>> behind hammer stones and the idea that something ancient from out >> >>>> there >> >>>> is hitting something random and creates a connection between the >> >>>> sublime >> >>>> >> >>> and >> >>>> the mundane. "Hammer fall" on the other hand is simply a sales >> >>> term which >> >>>> does the opposite of creating historical awareness: It completely >> >>>> overshadows all the other aspects (historical or other) of a >> >>>> meteorite >> >>>> shower. I'd find it fairly irritating if anyone used the term >> >>> "L'Aigle >> >>>> hammer fall", because one of the pieces (presumably) hit a man on >> >>>> the >> >>>> arm. A more recent example is Sutter's Mill - is it an important >> >>>> fall >> >>>> because one of the rocks struck a garage door? I feel these falls >> >>>> deserve different attributes in their headline, something which is >> >>>> perhaps attributable to all or most of the specimens of the fall, >> >>>> such >> >>>> as the historic significance, the classification, characteristics or >> >>>> man >> >>>> hours included in searching for the pieces in the strewn field. As >> >>>> mentioned before, I'm not referring to the actual stone which hit >> >>>> something, as the >> >>>> designation is significant in identifying the rock as being the >> >>>> single >> >>>> piece falling on something man made. >> >>>> >> >>>> Cheers, >> >>>> Regine >> >>>> ______________________________________________ >> >>>> >> >>>> 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 Tue 12 Jun 2012 10:04:45 PM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|