Chris and Mike F, I'm certainly no expert at this but as I understand it...the purchaser(first, second, third, etc.?? who knows) of a NWA meteorite may decide to ask for a number from the NonCom(group that gives out numbers/names) to give it an identity at a minimum. If they get a number...then he/she can use that to help get it classified if they can find someone to do it. They may also feel that this is way it can be tracked/labeled...giving it an identity, and possibly gives it more worth for resale. Personally I think it is a waste of time to get a number unless followed through with classification. But I maybe wrong with that statement??? The Sahara's are done the same way...given numbers but only a portion are classified. It is easier said than done to get a classification from what is obvious in the threads seen on the list in the past.
As far as an individual from NWA having a number...and then calling it the main mass. To me that is not reality. No offense Mark or anyone else who does this...but why in the world would you believe it is the biggest piece from a particular fall in the African desert? I guess giving it a name allows one to say that it is the biggest one with that number...main mass?...hardly I suspect. Same goes for the Sahara's. Personally I don't think the term "main mass" should be used with individually numbered pieces/groups from the deserts. What is the right use for main mass??? May I ask a question...Is it better to give them all numbers to gain an identity? Maybe so...Mark might be doing the right thing, even if he had no intention of getting it classified. I suspect the total number of orphan NWA,s (without numbers) probably far exceeds the ones with numbers. Back to Mike Fowlers earlier question. I think it was along the lines of "Does every individual piece have to be sliced and classified to be sure it came from the same meteorite find/fall?" This is a gray area from my perception...obviously it is not done when respectable dealers/collectors have their act together with verifying that the same material has been kept together. We have heard of Dean's problems like the BL group of beautiful stones that were challenged "How do you know they are the same fall without classifying them all". So, Mike trust me when I say that there are those out there who go by the rigid code "It is not a meteorite unless it has a name from NomCom and it has been classified". Even when you and I know it is a meteorite when we look at it. I guess I'm done. For all you new guys there is a rich history of threads in the archives that covers these subjects in great detail...with no clean ending. John > So, a meteorite with a number such as NWA 1139 is not necessarily classified but > was assigned the number for record keeping? > > Christopher > ----- Original Message ----- > From: MARK BOSTICK > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Meteorite List > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:29 AM > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] NWA 1139 > > > > Hello Mike and list, > > Mike wrote: The original post about NWA 1139 was mine. Sorry if I ruffled any > feathers > with my question, it was not my intention. > > No problem Mike. I did warn you at the start of the e-mail that I just spent > the day with the family.....:-) > > Is a number a name? Most I think do consider a number a name. However, a > meteorite with a non-number name usually sells for more then one with a number > name. > > Mike Also wrote: Will you be selling any more of those digital scales on ebay? > Steve Arnold, proud owner of NWA 1139 main mass, says they're a good deal. > > I have the scales on sale at my website, www.meteoritearticles.com. Several > list members have purchased one and all have been pleased. > > Mark Bostick > www.MeteoriteArticles.com > > ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
