Hello Stan, All,
Alright, again :)
>sorry i took the quote from a source that listed that as a source
"Editor's note: collectSPACE's collecting categories do not include meteorites for good reason: our focus is on space exploration history. Meteorites, on the other hand, are the natural history of space. There are websites that focus specifically on meteorites and do a far better job than we could ever hope to offer. That said, its well known there is some overlap among our communities and this article seemed to be of enough general interest to be included. We now return you to your regularly scheduled space history program, already in progress..."
Well, here's a quote from that page...seems as if the writer probably wasn't up to speed on his meteorite-related info I guess......huh.
> a 'vast' amount of material? I'd wager that this is a TINY fraction of all
meteorites recovered.
meteorites recovered.
Hmmm, and how much are you willing to lose? Remember that in the old days, much material was simply lost. Nowadays there are so many collectors that you're probably going to end up simply losing amounts of material rationally higher in amount and value.
It's true, the rocks might be worth something to the relatives, but I sure hope everyone keeps as neat records as my father does, because otherwise, there's just no hope for a large older collection being sold off in any organized manner.
> A good portion
>will quite simply be tossed, and you know it.
i doubt that. anyone who spends any signifigant sum of money is likely to
keep meticulous records, specimin cards, ect. the kids arent likely to toss
a thumbnail of rock that has a 200$ price tag on it.
>will quite simply be tossed, and you know it.
i doubt that. anyone who spends any signifigant sum of money is likely to
keep meticulous records, specimin cards, ect. the kids arent likely to toss
a thumbnail of rock that has a 200$ price tag on it.
Well, you have your opinion and I have mine. Neither can prove his point, though you must admit that however small you think the amount is, that it's still there (and I'm of the opinion that it's a large amount), and that valuable specimens are undoubtedly being lost. Take, for example, that collection that hit ebay a few years ago in which there were numerous unidentified irons, stones, and an individual of Pasamonte that had happened to keep its lable....lucky.
>especially in this day
and age when you can punch up google and see meteorites selling for
thousands of $ or more.
and age when you can punch up google and see meteorites selling for
thousands of $ or more.
Well, isn't it odd then, how a new meteorite from New Mexico turns up on ebay with a buy it now of a fraction of what it's worth? A simple google search would've showed Eric Twelker's site with slices of Dumont, a new Texan iron, selling for ~$8/g. I guess the missed that...and Rob Elliot's site with irons ranging in price, but usually still several dollars per gram for slices.
People use google, believe you me, but it's the very odd person that will really take the initiative and go through all of his relative's old documents to try to figure out which ones are which, when for all they know, it doesn't matter in the first place, and the name Pasamonte doesn't mean anything to him anyways.
> and this helps recover even MORE meteorites.
Now there's going to be an institution willing to pay for them as well...it still supports the dealers. I fail to see how you're making any sort of a point here.
> I disagree. if we are tlaking about rare stuff, what fraction of collectors
can afford anything but 'tiny little pieces'?
can afford anything but 'tiny little pieces'?
Alright, I've addressed my opinion of collecting....now to address the issue.
There will still be material coming to collectors. If the U of A chooses to buy half of a stone, it keeps the dealers from having to sit around flogging it in microgram-sized chips - if they chose to sell it. The dealers will move material more quickly, because there's less of it, and the collectors get more meteorites because the dealers are forced to go out and obtain more. So the dealers make more money faster...
Furthermore, to address the accusation the Darren brought against me: that I believe that "that only those with huge budgets should collect meteorites."
This is untrue. If you read my post thoroughly, you would have known that I would rather have not a collection of irons, but a single one - rather than a collection of micros. The prices are all relative...one can have a hundred pieces of this and that or one can wait for the main mass of a new iron and buy that. One would then have a single meteorite in his or her collection, but it would be a spectacular meteorite. It's all a personal choice, not one dictated by money.
This is untrue. If you read my post thoroughly, you would have known that I would rather have not a collection of irons, but a single one - rather than a collection of micros. The prices are all relative...one can have a hundred pieces of this and that or one can wait for the main mass of a new iron and buy that. One would then have a single meteorite in his or her collection, but it would be a spectacular meteorite. It's all a personal choice, not one dictated by money.
>Well, they can, but would the University of Arizona do a better job under
>Marvin's supervision? I think yes, at least more than the average
>collector.
I think they would do an equal job, while still allowing maximum exposure of
the public to meteorites.
Well, I've yet to see too many private collections on public display, but go ahead and prove me wrong. I know of Mark Bostick's and Marvin Killgore's. A small portion of ours will also be up somewhere, as well.
the public to meteorites.
Well, I've yet to see too many private collections on public display, but go ahead and prove me wrong. I know of Mark Bostick's and Marvin Killgore's. A small portion of ours will also be up somewhere, as well.
>*>essentially all unusual meteorites get classified. that means type
>specimins
>of all the 'good stuff' are being curated already, protecting the
>scientific
>legacy. *
>
>Well that's a nice, broad, and untrue statement.
>Hmmm. I wonder how many carbonaceous, rumuruti, kakangari, and primitive
>chondrites are sitting in boxes somewhere gathering dust.
>of all the 'good stuff' are being curated already, protecting the
>scientific
>legacy. *
>
>Well that's a nice, broad, and untrue statement.
>Hmmm. I wonder how many carbonaceous, rumuruti, kakangari, and primitive
>chondrites are sitting in boxes somewhere gathering dust.
Very few I'd wager.
Well, prove me wrong and I'll believe you...I've picked diogenites, CV's, CK's, CR's, and several unequilibrated meteorites out of those unclassified bins...so I have no doubt that there are a good few out there.
>Hell, ureilites were being discovered in Tucson by the tens of kilos, mixed
>in with ordinary material and being sold for pennies per gram.
>in with ordinary material and being sold for pennies per gram.
tens of KG? i've hurd of 100's of grams here and there buit never 10's of
kg's
kg's
Yes, Stan, tens of kilos. I personally saw four 1+kilo pieces that were parts of a single, broken up stone, as well as two other pieces that fit together to make a 3+kg fragment. I'm not entirely sure about how much more there was, but the four fragments that fit together looked as if they'd been very recently broken - as if in transit, and there were still several very freshly broken faces without fragments to fit onto them when it was reassembled. To whom those were sold to, I cannot guess. And I only saw a small portion of the show in the weekend that I was there. Who knows how much more went undiscovered or sold for next to nothing...
>Furthermore, this U of A program will not simply focus on rare types. It
>will also need common material - the same stuff you deem worthless still
>has
>scientific value...fyi.
>will also need common material - the same stuff you deem worthless still
>has
>scientific value...fyi.
I never said it is worthless, but i dont think anyone is going to argue that
there is some danger of running out of common weathered chondrites for
research any time soon.
there is some danger of running out of common weathered chondrites for
research any time soon.
Agreed; they won't run out soon. But they will eventually.
>Major chunks, eh? Sounded like they'd take what they could get.
their goal is to raise 10 million in 10 years. dont know how much of that
is going to go in to buying meteorites, but that kind of money is enough to
soak up a very large amount of the neat new stuff comming out of the
deserts. Their activities today I dont think are much of a concern for the
average collector. their activities if and when they get this kind of
funding however would be.
is going to go in to buying meteorites, but that kind of money is enough to
soak up a very large amount of the neat new stuff comming out of the
deserts. Their activities today I dont think are much of a concern for the
average collector. their activities if and when they get this kind of
funding however would be.
It's called an endowment. I've already stated this. Yes, they want ten million dollars, but that amount will be put into an account so that they can use the interest created to buy meteorites. I'd research the program before you start badmouthing it.
>Are you saying that it's wrong when a collector buys a main mass and
>doesn't
>cut it up to divide it into pieces for all of his fellow collectors?
>That's
>what you seem to be implying....
if it's a rare specimin that is underrepresented in collections then I would
say, yes.
say, yes.
Well, let's agree to disagree. We appear to have different philosophies in this area. I believe in not cutting pristine material into tiny bits so that a few people who want a bit can have one. You end up destroying the meteorite that way, and for what?
Money, I'm pretty sure....no, really sure.......
If I were to find a specimin of a type that is not readily avalible on the
market I would cut a portion of it up to offer to collectors - even though
my general philosophy is to buy large individuals and remove the smallest
amount of material possible to produce a large cut face.
And yet you seem to have a problem with the University of Arizona doing this. If a dealer gives them a portion, the rest goes to the market. I see no logic in your argument whatsoever. Except, the university's specimens would be on public display, and would be studied, so that people might learn from them, whereas yours...well, I have no idea what your hours are or where you live...any chance you could help me out with that?
Regards,
Jason
On 7/14/06, stan . <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>*I see no evidence of this quote in the article that you sent a link for.
>I'd like to know where you found it. Because it wasn't in that article. *
http://collectspace.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/003097.html
sorry i took the quote from a source that listed that as a source
>In any case, it's true for the most part. I've seen many unlabeled estate
>sale specimens up on ebay with no history to speak of, and no useful
>information to identify them. It's true that many collections are
>dispersed
>in a correct fashion at the time of the collectors' deaths, but vast
>amounts
>of material are lost as well.
a 'vast' amount of material? I'd wager that this is a TINY fraction of all
meteorites recovered.
> A good portion
>will quite simply be tossed, and you know it.
i doubt that. anyone who spends any signifigant sum of money is likely to
keep meticulous records, specimin cards, ect. the kids arent likely to toss
a thumbnail of rock that has a 200$ price tag on it. especially in this day
and age when you can punch up google and see meteorites selling for
thousands of $ or more.
>*> Dealers are buying meteorites at prices the scientific
>community cannot match and cutting them into small pieces for sale to
>bidders in a flooded market. *
>
>Undeniable, in any way, shape, or form.
and this helps recover even MORE meteorites.
>>"The whole point of what we're doing is to prevent people from cutting
>every rare meteorite into tiny, little pieces," said Marvin Killgore of
>Payson, Ariz.
>
>= > Anti-collector? I think not.
I disagree. if we are tlaking about rare stuff, what fraction of collectors
can afford anything but 'tiny little pieces'?
>Why have a tray of tiny bits when one could focus their funds and purchase
>a
>single spectacular specimen? If something's worth doing, it should be done
>well...no brainer in my opinion. Micros fill a human urge to make a
>collection of something I guess, but it takes some of the fun - and all of
>the awe - out of collecting. I, for example, find it much more exciting to
>hold, say, a ten kilo iron, than a few tiny lunar micros, but maybe that's
>just me.
I agree for the most part yet i see nothing wrong with micro collecting. I
have much admiration for guys like david weir who tries to get some of every
sort of meteorite or Norber Classen who tries to get some of every sort of
lunar.
My own collecting habits tend towards the large display worthy specimins but
quite simply there are not enough of these to go around.
>Well, they can, but would the University of Arizona do a better job under
>Marvin's supervision? I think yes, at least more than the average
>collector.
I think they would do an equal job, while still allowing maximum exposure of
the public to meteorites.
>*>essentially all unusual meteorites get classified. that means type
>specimins
>of all the 'good stuff' are being curated already, protecting the
>scientific
>legacy. *
>
>Well that's a nice, broad, and untrue statement.
>Hmmm. I wonder how many carbonaceous, rumuruti, kakangari, and primitive
>chondrites are sitting in boxes somewhere gathering dust.
Very few I'd wager.
>Hell, ureilites were being discovered in Tucson by the tens of kilos, mixed
>in with ordinary material and being sold for pennies per gram.
tens of KG? i've hurd of 100's of grams here and there buit never 10's of
kg's
this is a slip up on the part of the people selling meteorites and the SWMC
would not stop this from hapening.
>Furthermore, this U of A program will not simply focus on rare types. It
>will also need common material - the same stuff you deem worthless still
>has
>scientific value...fyi.
I never said it is worthless, but i dont think anyone is going to argue that
there is some danger of running out of common weathered chondrites for
research any time soon.
>Major chunks, eh? Sounded like they'd take what they could get.
their goal is to raise 10 million in 10 years. dont know how much of that
is going to go in to buying meteorites, but that kind of money is enough to
soak up a very large amount of the neat new stuff comming out of the
deserts. Their activities today I dont think are much of a concern for the
average collector. their activities if and when they get this kind of
funding however would be.
>Are you saying that it's wrong when a collector buys a main mass and
>doesn't
>cut it up to divide it into pieces for all of his fellow collectors?
>That's
>what you seem to be implying....
if it's a rare specimin that is underrepresented in collections then I would
say, yes.
If I were to find a specimin of a type that is not readily avalible on the
market I would cut a portion of it up to offer to collectors - even though
my general philosophy is to buy large individuals and remove the smallest
amount of material possible to produce a large cut face.
______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
