Hey Jason,
I agree with you, I'm just teasing you a bit... ;) You needn't defend
your definition.
The simplest point is that there is more than one factor involved in
determining the rarity of a meteorite, or individual type. It can be all
the above, and/or just one factor, as in your rare nwa xxx L6 which you
will never sell. It's all in the eye of the "holder" and the one who
wants to hold it.
Just a small correction though, I said access is "also" a determining
factor, not the "only" factor. So no I wasn't referring only to a groups
of collectors with access, but rather everything relevant as a whole
needs to be considered.
Besides your point that you could acquire pieces of the two irons
mentioned proves my point. It's also about access, and not just type,
class, and TKW. They are rare, not everyone has access, but there's tons
of the material. Count yourself lucky to be able to have that access to
such rare specimens.
So, considering all of this. I'd like to repose Sonny's very good
questions...
"...Would this (K-chondrite) be one of the rarest meteorites ever found?
If not, what meteorite would be?..."
Regards,
Eric
P.S. Sorry for hijacking this thread everyone... ;)
Jason Utas wrote:
Hola Eric, All,
You're only talking about collector availability, which is a kind of
skewed way of looking at things, in my opinion.
I'm talking about rarity in the sense of how much of a given material
is known, "material" being the term for meteoric matter of a given
structure and chemical composition that we can distinguish as
different from other meteoric matter of differing structures and
compositions.
I hesitate to use the word "type" above because, as has been noted,
the types that we have assigned meteorites are in many cases far too
inclusive or exclusive as to be a truly accurate judge of such
associations. There are over two hundred Eucrites, and yet Ibitira is
unique. And a Eucrite.
It's a bit of an issue.
In other words, my "rare" applies to how much of 'something' we know
exists, whereas your "rare" applies to how much is available to
collectors.
In my opinion, my usage of the word is more valid; according to your
definition, my NWA xxxx L6 of which I hold the entire mass (and will
never sell any) is indeed the "rarest" meteorite on the planet, along
with countless other common stones. It is also significantly more
"rare" than Kakangari, which is distributed amongst museums worldwide,
and which is owned by numerous collectors. My L6 is also more "rare"
than the "rare" meteorites you mention - both Willamette and Old
Woman; if I wanted to, I could procure a specimen of each of those
meteorites, whereas no one other than myself will ever own even a
milligram of my NWA xxxx L6.
When I use the word "rare," it actually means that something is
uncommon or exists in limited quantity, as opposed to its being simply
inaccessible to a group of people, whomever that group may be.
It's just less subjective.
Regards,
Jason
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Meteorites USA <[email protected]> wrote:
Jason, list,
Maybe I don't quite understand... ;) The size of an individual meteorite
whether ungrouped or even a previously unknown type or new classification
would not be the deciding factor in determining rarity at all would it?
If of course you consider the major factor concerning rarity to be the
number of stones or TKW, and you don't slice or break up the specimen, then
a 1 ton stone could of course be the rarest type in existence if it were in
fact of some previously unknown or ungrouped type right? The same could be
said if no one had access to that 1 ton specimen.
Technically speaking distribution and access to material is also a
determining factor of the rarity of a meteorite. The term "rarest meteorite"
does not quite depend on type or class alone.
So yes I would agree that you're right, if type were the only factor
involved, then your 1-2g specimen of an ungrouped type it would be the
rarest meteorite.
But consider the Willamette meteorite, or the Old Woman meteorite. They are
both irons, and of a common class, but the distribution of that particular
material in private and university collections makes it rare doesn't it?
Obviously I'm splitting hairs... Maybe it's more about the meaning of the
phrase "the rarest meteorite" than the actual rarity of the meteorite type
class.
Regards,
Eric Wichman
Meteorites USA
Jason Utas wrote:
Hello Sonny, All,
I've often thought about such a term - "the rarest meteorite."
The rarest meteorite would of course be smallest ungrouped meteorite,
for one could feasibly conceive of a 1-2g unique meteorite. When a
new type is named, however, a hype generally surrounds it - rather
like the olivine diogenite craze of a few years ago, or the confusion
surrounding Bencubbinites, and other poorly defined types of
meteorites.
The simple fact of the matter is that there meteorites are too often
categorized by our current system into associations and groups into
which they fit rather poorly; Jeff Grossman states as much in the last
thread surrounding the poor chemical and isotopic relationships
between many basaltic meteorites deemed "eucrites."
But regardless of this fact, a simple truth remains. There are
countless ungrouped meteorites and several Kakangari-type meteorites,
so while they may be one of the least common "types," they are by no
means examples of the "rarest" meteorite known.
Regards,
Jason
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:12 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Bernd and list,
Would this be one of the rarest meteorites ever found? If not, what
meteorite would be?
Thanks,
Sonny
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, Nov 17, 2009 1:12 pm
Subject: [meteorite-list] Photo of a K-chondrite
Hi Greg and List,
Hardly any photos of Kakangaris exist. You'll find one on David
Weir's excellent website: http://www.meteoritestudies.com/
Click on chondrites and then scroll down to Kakangari!
Thin section pics of Kakangari can be found here (on pages 202-205):
D.S. LAURETTA, M. KILLGORE (2005) A Color Atlas of Meteorites in Thin
Section
(Golden Retriever Publications and Southwest Meteorite Press, ISBN
0-9720472-1-2, 301 pp.).
Best wishes,
Bernd
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
