Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
He surely deserves a Harvey, Steve, not just by virtue of this single post alone! So let the idea roll. One of the real Oldies and Goodies imho... Alex Berlin/Germany Original-Nachricht > Datum: Sat, 1 May 2010 18:49:57 + > Von: meteorh...@aol.com > An: "Martin Altmann" , > meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com, > meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices > Martin, > > Your last post has convinced me to nominate you for a Harvey Award this > next year. Are you coming to Tucson by any chance in 2011? > > Steve Arnold > of Meteorite Men > Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel > > -Original Message- > From: "Martin Altmann" > Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 19:29:01 > To: > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices > > Good morning Jason, > > I don't know. > Ward's collection ended in Chicago and New York. > The DuPont collection in Chicago too. > Nininger's collection in London and Flagstaff. > Zeitschel's collection in Tokyo > and many examples more. > So we can't be sure, that once the Hupé- , the Farmer-, the > Utas-collection > will have a similar fate :-) > > > >They sit at home until a new fall > >happens within driving distance, and then rush to the scene -- not in > >the hopes of finding a collection piece, but with the hope of finding > >a stone to sell. > > Really? > I think that is somewhat exaggerated. Only cause Joe sliced his stone. > Look we saw just with the WI-fall so many happy finders. > I don't think, that Jim Baxter (and his third stone, the oriented one, is > in > my opinion prettier than Joe's find) will ever slice one of his finds. > Neither I believe that Terry ever will sell a stone (note that he even > donated some), nor Ward, nor most of the other finders. > > I think that is a similar pseudo problem, like the overestimated number of > meteorite hunters. > Observed falls happen simply too rarely that many collectors would travel > to > the places of action, and most falls yield to few stones, that they would > find one to dice. And with mass finds, it is less tragic if some stones > are > cut. > (And btw. the more hunters, the more finds, the higher the tkw, the > cheaper > the fall, the easier to save a stone from being cut.. isn't it?) > > >It's a new generation of quasi-dealers who *don't* traverse the world > >for new falls. > I don't understand, if not, then they don't have any stones for dicing? > > > >Most private collectors keep horrible records > > Really? Or guesswork? > I've rather an opposite impression. > > Also regarding the curation it seems to me that all in all private > collectors take somewhat more care. No wonder, as they paid their > hard-earned money for their pieces, so that most of them are highly > alerted, > if the first small spot of rust appears on a surface of a stone. > In many universities there are kept some interesting historic specimens, > but unfortunately meteorites are such an exotic niche of mineralogy and > geology, that in such places they rot forgotten in some drawers, after the > scientist, who once acquired them had left the stage. > And unfortunately due to the cutback of funds, several of the very > well-known museums can't care for their meteorites as it would be good or > minimal standard. > > > So let's be more constructive. > Jason, what do you suggest, how entire and remarkable specimens could be > better preserved uncut? > > Let's check the initial position: > > Today institutes often have somewhat limited means. > Anyway for research, due to the better techniques, they need only small > amounts of material. For thin sections and the analyses in general only a > very few grams, to do their work completely. > Therefore they tend to acquire only minor amounts. Understandable, because > instead to buy one large lump, they can work on dozens of different > meteorites for the same money. > > And today the museums, which hoarded meteorites for the posterity, aren't > able to buy meteorites anymore, often even not tiny slices. > (Uuh, I remember that once it was for me much more easier to repatriate a > quite rare and historic US-iron-fullslice to the tiny local museum in the > village, where it was found nearby, than to sell to or to swap it with one > of the large institutional US-collections, which hadn't that iron yet.) > > Additionally the market for specialized private collectors isn't capable > enough, to take over most of the entire specimens. > > Pl
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
Martin, Your last post has convinced me to nominate you for a Harvey Award this next year. Are you coming to Tucson by any chance in 2011? Steve Arnold of Meteorite Men Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel -Original Message- From: "Martin Altmann" Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 19:29:01 To: Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices Good morning Jason, I don't know. Ward's collection ended in Chicago and New York. The DuPont collection in Chicago too. Nininger's collection in London and Flagstaff. Zeitschel's collection in Tokyo and many examples more. So we can't be sure, that once the Hupé- , the Farmer-, the Utas-collection will have a similar fate :-) >They sit at home until a new fall >happens within driving distance, and then rush to the scene -- not in >the hopes of finding a collection piece, but with the hope of finding >a stone to sell. Really? I think that is somewhat exaggerated. Only cause Joe sliced his stone. Look we saw just with the WI-fall so many happy finders. I don't think, that Jim Baxter (and his third stone, the oriented one, is in my opinion prettier than Joe's find) will ever slice one of his finds. Neither I believe that Terry ever will sell a stone (note that he even donated some), nor Ward, nor most of the other finders. I think that is a similar pseudo problem, like the overestimated number of meteorite hunters. Observed falls happen simply too rarely that many collectors would travel to the places of action, and most falls yield to few stones, that they would find one to dice. And with mass finds, it is less tragic if some stones are cut. (And btw. the more hunters, the more finds, the higher the tkw, the cheaper the fall, the easier to save a stone from being cut.. isn't it?) >It's a new generation of quasi-dealers who *don't* traverse the world >for new falls. I don't understand, if not, then they don't have any stones for dicing? >Most private collectors keep horrible records Really? Or guesswork? I've rather an opposite impression. Also regarding the curation it seems to me that all in all private collectors take somewhat more care. No wonder, as they paid their hard-earned money for their pieces, so that most of them are highly alerted, if the first small spot of rust appears on a surface of a stone. In many universities there are kept some interesting historic specimens, but unfortunately meteorites are such an exotic niche of mineralogy and geology, that in such places they rot forgotten in some drawers, after the scientist, who once acquired them had left the stage. And unfortunately due to the cutback of funds, several of the very well-known museums can't care for their meteorites as it would be good or minimal standard. So let's be more constructive. Jason, what do you suggest, how entire and remarkable specimens could be better preserved uncut? Let's check the initial position: Today institutes often have somewhat limited means. Anyway for research, due to the better techniques, they need only small amounts of material. For thin sections and the analyses in general only a very few grams, to do their work completely. Therefore they tend to acquire only minor amounts. Understandable, because instead to buy one large lump, they can work on dozens of different meteorites for the same money. And today the museums, which hoarded meteorites for the posterity, aren't able to buy meteorites anymore, often even not tiny slices. (Uuh, I remember that once it was for me much more easier to repatriate a quite rare and historic US-iron-fullslice to the tiny local museum in the village, where it was found nearby, than to sell to or to swap it with one of the large institutional US-collections, which hadn't that iron yet.) Additionally the market for specialized private collectors isn't capable enough, to take over most of the entire specimens. Plus - the efforts to find meteorites outside of Antarctica of the public sector are extremely marginal. So marginal, that by far most meteoritic finds of our times are produced by private hunters, collectors, dealers. A researcher is paid by the state, for doing his research on meteorites and sometimes also for hunting them. A private person isn't paid by the public, so he's forced "to make money" with a part of his finds, to be able to continue to produce all these new meteorites. So what do you suggest? I think, perhaps a simple solution would be, that the meteorite budgets of the institutes and museums should be partially restored again. Talking of meteorites doesn't mean to talk of catastrophic sums. I recently read some prices from the Fine Arts Fair in Maastricht, Where also museums are buying and collecting art is also a public task. I found there, that a single Gauguin, and he painted quite a lot of pictures, would buy all l
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
Good morning Jason, I don't know. Ward's collection ended in Chicago and New York. The DuPont collection in Chicago too. Nininger's collection in London and Flagstaff. Zeitschel's collection in Tokyo and many examples more. So we can't be sure, that once the Hupé- , the Farmer-, the Utas-collection will have a similar fate :-) >They sit at home until a new fall >happens within driving distance, and then rush to the scene -- not in >the hopes of finding a collection piece, but with the hope of finding >a stone to sell. Really? I think that is somewhat exaggerated. Only cause Joe sliced his stone. Look we saw just with the WI-fall so many happy finders. I don't think, that Jim Baxter (and his third stone, the oriented one, is in my opinion prettier than Joe's find) will ever slice one of his finds. Neither I believe that Terry ever will sell a stone (note that he even donated some), nor Ward, nor most of the other finders. I think that is a similar pseudo problem, like the overestimated number of meteorite hunters. Observed falls happen simply too rarely that many collectors would travel to the places of action, and most falls yield to few stones, that they would find one to dice. And with mass finds, it is less tragic if some stones are cut. (And btw. the more hunters, the more finds, the higher the tkw, the cheaper the fall, the easier to save a stone from being cut.. isn't it?) >It's a new generation of quasi-dealers who *don't* traverse the world >for new falls. I don't understand, if not, then they don't have any stones for dicing? >Most private collectors keep horrible records Really? Or guesswork? I've rather an opposite impression. Also regarding the curation it seems to me that all in all private collectors take somewhat more care. No wonder, as they paid their hard-earned money for their pieces, so that most of them are highly alerted, if the first small spot of rust appears on a surface of a stone. In many universities there are kept some interesting historic specimens, but unfortunately meteorites are such an exotic niche of mineralogy and geology, that in such places they rot forgotten in some drawers, after the scientist, who once acquired them had left the stage. And unfortunately due to the cutback of funds, several of the very well-known museums can't care for their meteorites as it would be good or minimal standard. So let's be more constructive. Jason, what do you suggest, how entire and remarkable specimens could be better preserved uncut? Let's check the initial position: Today institutes often have somewhat limited means. Anyway for research, due to the better techniques, they need only small amounts of material. For thin sections and the analyses in general only a very few grams, to do their work completely. Therefore they tend to acquire only minor amounts. Understandable, because instead to buy one large lump, they can work on dozens of different meteorites for the same money. And today the museums, which hoarded meteorites for the posterity, aren't able to buy meteorites anymore, often even not tiny slices. (Uuh, I remember that once it was for me much more easier to repatriate a quite rare and historic US-iron-fullslice to the tiny local museum in the village, where it was found nearby, than to sell to or to swap it with one of the large institutional US-collections, which hadn't that iron yet.) Additionally the market for specialized private collectors isn't capable enough, to take over most of the entire specimens. Plus - the efforts to find meteorites outside of Antarctica of the public sector are extremely marginal. So marginal, that by far most meteoritic finds of our times are produced by private hunters, collectors, dealers. A researcher is paid by the state, for doing his research on meteorites and sometimes also for hunting them. A private person isn't paid by the public, so he's forced "to make money" with a part of his finds, to be able to continue to produce all these new meteorites. So what do you suggest? I think, perhaps a simple solution would be, that the meteorite budgets of the institutes and museums should be partially restored again. Talking of meteorites doesn't mean to talk of catastrophic sums. I recently read some prices from the Fine Arts Fair in Maastricht, Where also museums are buying and collecting art is also a public task. I found there, that a single Gauguin, and he painted quite a lot of pictures, would buy all lunaites of the private sector, hence 90% of the Non-Apollo lunar material in existence. Huh and an old master from the Netherlands, the name not known among those, who are not interested that much in art, would buy all HEDs ever found on Earth, except Millbillillie. I read some days ago in the "Antarctic Sun" that the annual budget of NSF to maintain the Antarctic facilities and for all research projects there, is 420 million USD. Dunnoh if the salaries of the meteorite people there are included there or paid
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
David's point is well-taken and I apologize. I went for the bait and wish I didn't. I should have just stated that no one has the right to impose their aesthetic on others---or slam those who might disagree. Moving on... __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
Jason I spoke to your criticism of Joe---and what was his difficult decision whether or not to subdivide his specimen---as being overly judgmental and condescending. Your very first words in response to my thoughts were "I wouldn't expect anything less from a dealer," and you later added you weren't trying to be condescending. Well, I have a question---was your statement to me condescending? I just want to be clear, because if you are going appoint yourself as the arbiter as to what constitutes a stone so beautiful it shouldn't be cut, I'm curious as to what you mean by "beauty"---because I don't believe we agree on what constitutes "condescension." "I wouldn't expect anything less from a dealer." You've got to be kidding. Major figures in meteorites (e.g., Haag, Zeitschel, etc.) have stated that this "dealer" started the first collection based on the aesthetics of complete specimens---a collection which I believe is the most widely regarded of its kind today---and now you're coming after me for disagreeing with you? Unlike yourself, my professional life has been devoted to the arts. Rudolf Arnheim was my advisor and my work has appeared in museums--- and no, Jason, I did not find Joe's specimen to be particularly aesthetic (and should you be interested, I can privately explain why). Was it nice? Sure. Do I appreciate your passion for complete specimens--fragmented or otherwise? You better believe it. Absolutely. Do I believe you have the right to put anyone in your crosshairs because they disagree with your sense of aesthetics? Absolutely not. No one has that right. One becomes an arbiter by example, not by railing against those who they believe trample their concept of pretty. If you truly enjoyed Joe's specimen as much as you seem to suggest, you would have acquired it. I feel you made some terrific points as well as specious arguments (neither of which will be cited as I do not have the patience). All the best / Darryl On Apr 30, 2010, at 5:12 PM, Jason Utas wrote: I wouldn't expect anything less from a dealer, with few exceptions. The point, Darryl, is that I wouldn't care if it's the largest stone or the smallest one - and I know for a fact that there are larger stones from this fall that have already been found. Just...look at those photos. It's a beautiful stone. --Meteorites are necessarily subdivided to assist researchers in their work; --No true meteorite lover would thwart such research by preventing the subdivision of their specimen; Broken side or not, it's a beautiful stone, and it's a shame to see it cut. Yes, samples of falls are always required for analysis and study, and I'm always willing to give up that share. You imply that we're against it. And there's a hell of a big difference between giving 20 grams (or more) to science and slicing up a stone to sell to collectors. --Joe's stone was already subdivided by atmospheric forces. It was incomplete and I do not comprehend why the supposed largest stone needs to be preserved as found; The main justification that I've seen so for for cutting it is that 'it's a broken stone - it should be cut anyways.' Two or three people have brought this up. Practically all meteorites are "subdivided by atmospheric forces." You seem to be implying that a complete fusion crust would be enough to warrant not cutting it. Look at the photographs, Darryl. It's a beautiful stone. I used to be of the mentality that 'if it's not complete, it's not worth getting.' But lately, I've been seeing larger fragments of beautiful fresh falls, and I've stopped caring so much. A broken side on a meteorite is a window into the interior of what's likely a four and a half billion year old time capsule. Especially with a breccia like this stone...a broken side doesn't detract. Yes, you might get a few dollars less per gram. As a collector, that makes it all the more appealing to me. The comparison of Mineral Point to the Mona Lisa (chasing the alliteration) does not hold up to scrutiny. Meteorites are not paintings---which are typically not cut apart, except by art critics. The only place I see the analogy actually failing is with regards to the fact that science always needs a piece of a given meteorite, so you always have to 'cut that corner off.' I would argue that we should cut meteorites up about as often as paintings are shredded, with few exceptions. If there's scientific work to be done, great, cut it. If not...cutting up stones for money and so that 'everyone can have a piece'... Darryl, you say that cutting stones up for science is a good thing - but that's such a vague statement. I agree - samples should be available for science, but that's not what happens. Science gets what science gets, and the rest gets sold. You can't justify the dicing up of large meteorites with "science," because cutting a meteorite doesn't mean that more will
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
Hello Steve, All, I'm going to say that this is no longer about Joe's find, but about meteorites in general...Martin's message is replied to below this post. > The scientific value in a meteorite is in the information it contains. To > obtain most of this information, a rock has to be cut, sometimes to the > extreme of having thin sections made. True. That doesn't necessitate the dicing of a meteorite, though. It's one thing to say that a sample has to be removed for study, and another matter entirely to completely section a meteorite. > For centuries, scientists and institutions have been breaking and cutting > meteorites to both study AND to exchange. Sometimes with negligible scientific gains. It's one thing to say that a piece was removed for study, but...hell, I'll say right now that I don't think that all of the trading that many museums did in the past was the best possible thing for the science of meteoritics. In many cases, museums were trying to build collections, and to get samples of various meteorites forteh sake of having a piece. I disagree with that sort of mentality. > Trading a piece of this for a piece of that, or a slice of that for a slice > of this has worked great since the start of collecting these great specimens. > It didn't take a rocket scientist 200 years ago to learn that it is much > more cost efficient to make an exchange and then ship a portion of a specimen > around the world to be researched, than it is to ship a researcher around the > globe to study the specimen located at one collection. Well, yes they were great specimens, but...look at what happened to beautiful meteorites like N'Goureyma, and many others -- just flip through Buchwald's handbook for *countless* examples. Negligible scientific gain came from the complete sectioning of those irons, but it happened anyways. Scores of beautiful iron meteorites now...slices sitting in collections. > Not only that, I think there is a valid argument to be made that it is > scientifically responsible to part out specimens as far and wide as possible. > The more pieces that get to different collections, the better, I would think. That makes sense if you're planning on a disaster destroying valuable samples, but...that doesn't happen too often. And even if such an event were to occur, how could it be more destructive than what dealers do to meteorites today, when cutting turns 1/3 of a given stone into dust, and the rest into small slices and fragments. It's about as destructive as you can get. > And while I'm at it, I want to stand up for the private collectors as well. > As a whole, I would say private collectors actually do a better job of > curating and preserving their collections than, as a whole, all the different > institutions. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Very mixed bag, and I wouldn't say that private collectors do a better job in general. > Of course there are bad private collectors and there are great institutional > collectors. Most private collectors keep horrible records and don't even have comprehensive collection lists. I honestly don't understand why you think this. > But it is funny how when someone spends some of their own hard earned cash, > how they appreciate what they have acquired. It is sad in some (not in all, > but in some) cases when a hired employee (often a government employee) will > not respect what is entrusted to him or her because it is just part of the > job. Oh, such people appreciate them, but in not keeping good records, the moment they die, their entire collection is rendered worthless, because they didn't keep labels with most specimens and didn't keep a thorough catalog. > Or in some cases an institution will have a great curator who will acquire > and go to great extremes to preserve a collection, only for that person to > retire, or move to a new employer leaving a great collection behind to be > curated by someone else who cares far less for it. Even when that happens, it's the odd university collection that 'disappears.' Private collections do so all the time, and more to their detriment since a large number of private collectors don't paint collection numbers on their specimens of keep a record of what they have (and where each specimen is). > I have the utmost respect for most all of the private collectors I have met. > I feel when meteorites are spread out amongst dozens if not hundreds of BOTH > private collections and institutional collections, it is a great thing. Well, it means people are buying them, if that's a good thingI suppose it is for you. > Yes, of course as an entrepreneur trying to make a buck, it would be > wonderful if there were far more collectors that had the desire and the funds > to pay a premium for whole stones as they were found. My job would be far > easier to only have to make one sale as opposed to many. Right...except you can't find too many buyers for a $30k rock, and you can get mo
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
Hi there, I can write even longer mails... Well, I'm no native speaker, but in reading Jason's posting, I had the same sensation like Darryl, that it was meant somewhat condescending... ...or better to say, that it was the good ol' comfort but nevertheless outdated dealers-bashing. -- "I'm legitimately worried by this change that's taking place. People seem genuinely more interested in the money of meteorites than what got me interested in them all those years ago." " I wouldn't expect anything less from a dealer, with few exceptions." " Yes, you might get a few dollars less per gram." "If not...cutting up stones for money" "In most cases, dealers give the same small samples to science because they want to sell as much as they can." "- hell, he'd probably get more out of it per gram if he did, selling it in mg-sized samples." "I understand that you're thinking differently than at least some dealers now" "chasing down falls for the money of it has been such a common theme recently that I felt" "It just seems as though very few people are doing it for the love of it anymore." "The story reminds me of quite a few, to be honest: dealer chases down new fall/find, finds it, cuts it up, sells it." "I'll take it quietly while a dealer dices with no pretext [to make money]," "Is it really the dream of most people out there to simply find a new fall for the cash in it?" - Fie! Jason. You know what? All these hunters and dealers, most time of the year not at home, going around twice, three times around the globe per year, for the tiny chance to find a stone or two. All those people walking every free minute, under the sun, eating dust, hundreds and thousands miles, all these people doing the fieldwork, trying to narrow down a fireball, all this people gambling with their own hard-earned money (and often enough with their health too), often enough returning with empty hands.. ...do you really think they could do that, if they wouldn't LOVE meteorites? Where are you taking the pretension from, that they should pursue their profession pro bono or for the good of their health? You might be not used to that, cause you will work later in a tax-funded environment, but there is no difference to a carpenter, to run a shop or an enterprise (else than meteorite hunting/dealing is more difficult as we talking about the rarest matter on the planet). Each hunter or dealer has to pay his bills, his taxes, his expenses, his costs and he has additionally to make a living from his work. Won't repeat myself, once I wrote a lengthy email to this list, what all for expenses a person selling meteorites has to bear, to give an idea. Was highly appreciated by a veteran dealer, hence unsuspicious to be a greedy barbarian, right Al? They have their needs to be able to work in that weird field, the field of their dreams and their enthusiasm. That's btw the reason for quite all meteorites found by privateers being so much cheaper than any found by an university expedition, cause the hunters and dealers have to calculate. And to destroy your romanticism: when I was a boy, these few selected dealers you might have meant, a Haag, a Zeitschel, a New, a Carion.. - they were always selling slices and cuts, also small ones. And a Krantz, a Ward, a Foote, a Haag, as well as the first pioneers in the deserts and many more, who filled the institutional collections, they were two-fisted dealers, full stop. Difference to today is that meteorites are bringing not the money anymore, they were paid with in past... ...btw. I noted that it becomes more and more fashionable to have a nice "meteorite men"-bashing too. Gosh they are selling their Brenhams cheaper than a Nininger ever did. Why? Cause they found so much. Why did they found so many? Cause they worked hard. Good work. And the second difference is, that the museums, yes also in USA, don't spend the millions anymore for meteorites, like they did in past. Then it was of course easier to sell entire pieces and finds. And such a lock, stock and barrel! Of course the hunters, dealers and collectors are keeping their nicest recoveries. But not all are maybe in your comfort financial situation to do it always. Costs are running, or if a spare-time hunter sells to finance his passion, what's wrong with that? I don't know Joe. If he sells, for paying a part of the education of his sons or if he needs a new car or a vacation, whatever, who would dare to remonstrate with him on selling the stone? I fully believe, that it wasn't such an easy decision for Joe to give the stone away. You know what the difference between you and Joe is? Joe dropped everything immediately and went on the hunt! And he was lucky. You could have found that very stone, but you didn't, you even didn't try. So I don't understand why you made a comment about Joe at all. And this stone-old cutting debate, which we had a dozen times on the list. For me it's always remarkable, that those, wagging the moralis
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
Hello List, I am going to step in here and take issue with this concept that it is "unethical" or some how morally wrong to cut a meteorite. The scientific value in a meteorite is in the information it contains. To obtain most of this information, a rock has to be cut, sometimes to the extreme of having thin sections made. For centuries, scientists and institutions have been breaking and cutting meteorites to both study AND to exchange. Trading a piece of this for a piece of that, or a slice of that for a slice of this has worked great since the start of collecting these great specimens. It didn't take a rocket scientist 200 years ago to learn that it is much more cost efficient to make an exchange and then ship a portion of a specimen around the world to be researched, than it is to ship a researcher around the globe to study the specimen located at one collection. Not only that, I think there is a valid argument to be made that it is scientifically responsible to part out specimens as far and wide as possible. The more pieces that get to different collections, the better, I would think. And while I'm at it, I want to stand up for the private collectors as well. As a whole, I would say private collectors actually do a better job of curating and preserving their collections than, as a whole, all the different institutions. Of course there are bad private collectors and there are great institutional collectors. But it is funny how when someone spends some of their own hard earned cash, how they appreciate what they have acquired. It is sad in some (not in all, but in some) cases when a hired employee (often a government employee) will not respect what is entrusted to him or her because it is just part of the job. Or in some cases an institution will have a great curator who will acquire and go to great extremes to preserve a collection, only for that person to retire, or move to a new employer leaving a great collection behind to be curated by someone else who cares far less for it. I have the utmost respect for most all of the private collectors I have met. I feel when meteorites are spread out amongst dozens if not hundreds of BOTH private collections and institutional collections, it is a great thing. Yes, of course as an entrepreneur trying to make a buck, it would be wonderful if there were far more collectors that had the desire and the funds to pay a premium for whole stones as they were found. My job would be far easier to only have to make one sale as opposed to many. And on a final note, if something is widely distributed, there is far less of a chance that something bad would happen to all of the material, such as fire, flood, war, theft, earthquake, tornado, mud slide, volcanic eruption, dictatorship, terrorist attack, etc. or even the death of a single individual that might privately hold all of something. I hope this doesn't offend anyone, I just think there is more than one way to look at this. Steve Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel -Original Message- From: Warren Sansoucie Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:43:07 To: METEORITE LIST Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices Why all the over-passionate debate about a man in a free country that found a stone and cut it up to sell it? What business is it of ours how he plays with his rock? If someone thought it was so beautiful, they could have offered to buy it and thus preserve it's beauty. It's actually easy to agree with and see all points of view here. Both sides make valid points and both sides are right. It boils down to the owner of the stone doing as they see fit. If you don't like the idea of it being cut, buy it before it gets cut. Warren sansoucie > Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:12:11 -0700 > From: meteorite...@gmail.com > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices > > I wouldn't expect anything less from a dealer, with few exceptions. > > The point, Darryl, is that I wouldn't care if it's the largest stone > or the smallest one - and I know for a fact that there are larger > stones from this fall that have already been found. > > Just...look at those photos. It's a beautiful stone. > >> --Meteorites are necessarily subdivided to assist researchers in their work; >> --No true meteorite lover would thwart such research by preventing the >> subdivision of their specimen; > > Broken side or not, it's a beautiful stone, and it's a shame to see it > cut. Yes, samples of falls are always required for analysis and > study, and I'm always willing to give up that share. You imply that > we're against it. > And there's a hell of a big difference between giving 20 grams (or > more) to science
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
If it was a complete stone and oriented - I would never cut it; mortgage my house first. Otherwise - perhaps. Does anyone know the biggest find to date? Is this still it? Happy hunting to everyone still there. I may decide to go to WI in three or four weeks, so leave a few for me. Greg S. > From: geo...@aol.com > Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:10:56 -0400 > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices > >>>If someone thought it was so beautiful, they could have offered to buy > it and thus preserve it's beauty<< > > Not really...someone could still think it was so beautiful, but also not > afford to buy it. > GeoZay > > __ > Visit the Archives at > http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list _ Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
>>If someone thought it was so beautiful, they could have offered to buy it and thus preserve it's beauty<< Not really...someone could still think it was so beautiful, but also not afford to buy it. GeoZay __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
I have to agree. If it was the only stone found, that would be one thing. But when over 10kg has already been found and many, many more kgs are out there, this one stone, while nice is not the end all be all of the fall. There are many others that are just as nice, or better that are available as whole stones. Remember, much will not be made public until the area is as secure and clean of meteorites as possible. We will see a 3kg stone soon, then more kg sized stones coming out after that. This was not a small fall. Greg Catterton www.wanderingstarmeteorites.com IMCA member 4682 On Ebay: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/wanderingstarmeteorites --- On Fri, 4/30/10, Warren Sansoucie wrote: > From: Warren Sansoucie > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices > To: "METEORITE LIST" > Date: Friday, April 30, 2010, 5:43 PM > > > Why all the over-passionate debate about a man in a free > country that found a stone and cut it up to sell it? > > What business is it of ours how he plays with his rock? > > If someone thought it was so beautiful, they could have > offered to buy it and thus preserve it's beauty. > > It's actually easy to agree with and see all points of view > here. Both sides make valid points and both sides are right. > > > It boils down to the owner of the stone doing as they see > fit. If you don't like the idea of it being cut, buy it > before it gets cut. > > Warren sansoucie > > > > > Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:12:11 -0700 > > From: meteorite...@gmail.com > > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices > > > > I wouldn't expect anything less from a dealer, with > few exceptions. > > > > The point, Darryl, is that I wouldn't care if it's the > largest stone > > or the smallest one - and I know for a fact that there > are larger > > stones from this fall that have already been found. > > > > Just...look at those photos. It's a beautiful stone. > > > >> --Meteorites are necessarily subdivided to assist > researchers in their work; > >> --No true meteorite lover would thwart such > research by preventing the > >> subdivision of their specimen; > > > > Broken side or not, it's a beautiful stone, and it's a > shame to see it > > cut. Yes, samples of falls are always required for > analysis and > > study, and I'm always willing to give up that share. > You imply that > > we're against it. > > And there's a hell of a big difference between giving > 20 grams (or > > more) to science and slicing up a stone to sell to > collectors. > > > >> --Joe's stone was already subdivided by > atmospheric forces. It was > >> incomplete and I do not comprehend why the > supposed largest stone needs to > >> be preserved as found; > > > > > > The main justification that I've seen so for for > cutting it is that > > 'it's a broken stone - it should be cut anyways.' Two > or three people > > have brought this up. > > > > Practically all meteorites are "subdivided by > atmospheric forces." > > You seem to be implying that a complete fusion crust > would be enough > > to warrant not cutting it. Look at the photographs, > Darryl. It's a > > beautiful stone. > > > > I used to be of the mentality that 'if it's not > complete, it's not > > worth getting.' But lately, I've been seeing larger > fragments of > > beautiful fresh falls, and I've stopped caring so > much. A broken side > > on a meteorite is a window into the interior of what's > likely a four > > and a half billion year old time capsule. Especially > with a breccia > > like this stone...a broken side doesn't detract. Yes, > you might get a > > few dollars less per gram. As a collector, that makes > it all the more > > appealing to me. > > > >> The > >> comparison of Mineral Point to the Mona Lisa > (chasing the alliteration) does > >> not hold up to scrutiny. Meteorites are not > paintings---which are typically > >> not cut apart, except by art critics. > > > > The only place I see the analogy actually failing is > with regards to > > the fact that science always needs a piece of a given > meteorite, so > > you always have to 'cut that corner off.' > > I would argue that we should cut meteorites up about > as often as > > paintings are shredded, with few exceptions.
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
Why all the over-passionate debate about a man in a free country that found a stone and cut it up to sell it? What business is it of ours how he plays with his rock? If someone thought it was so beautiful, they could have offered to buy it and thus preserve it's beauty. It's actually easy to agree with and see all points of view here. Both sides make valid points and both sides are right. It boils down to the owner of the stone doing as they see fit. If you don't like the idea of it being cut, buy it before it gets cut. Warren sansoucie > Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:12:11 -0700 > From: meteorite...@gmail.com > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices > > I wouldn't expect anything less from a dealer, with few exceptions. > > The point, Darryl, is that I wouldn't care if it's the largest stone > or the smallest one - and I know for a fact that there are larger > stones from this fall that have already been found. > > Just...look at those photos. It's a beautiful stone. > >> --Meteorites are necessarily subdivided to assist researchers in their work; >> --No true meteorite lover would thwart such research by preventing the >> subdivision of their specimen; > > Broken side or not, it's a beautiful stone, and it's a shame to see it > cut. Yes, samples of falls are always required for analysis and > study, and I'm always willing to give up that share. You imply that > we're against it. > And there's a hell of a big difference between giving 20 grams (or > more) to science and slicing up a stone to sell to collectors. > >> --Joe's stone was already subdivided by atmospheric forces. It was >> incomplete and I do not comprehend why the supposed largest stone needs to >> be preserved as found; > > > The main justification that I've seen so for for cutting it is that > 'it's a broken stone - it should be cut anyways.' Two or three people > have brought this up. > > Practically all meteorites are "subdivided by atmospheric forces." > You seem to be implying that a complete fusion crust would be enough > to warrant not cutting it. Look at the photographs, Darryl. It's a > beautiful stone. > > I used to be of the mentality that 'if it's not complete, it's not > worth getting.' But lately, I've been seeing larger fragments of > beautiful fresh falls, and I've stopped caring so much. A broken side > on a meteorite is a window into the interior of what's likely a four > and a half billion year old time capsule. Especially with a breccia > like this stone...a broken side doesn't detract. Yes, you might get a > few dollars less per gram. As a collector, that makes it all the more > appealing to me. > >> The >> comparison of Mineral Point to the Mona Lisa (chasing the alliteration) does >> not hold up to scrutiny. Meteorites are not paintings---which are typically >> not cut apart, except by art critics. > > The only place I see the analogy actually failing is with regards to > the fact that science always needs a piece of a given meteorite, so > you always have to 'cut that corner off.' > I would argue that we should cut meteorites up about as often as > paintings are shredded, with few exceptions. If there's scientific > work to be done, great, cut it. If not...cutting up stones for money > and so that 'everyone can have a piece'... > Darryl, you say that cutting stones up for science is a good thing - > but that's such a vague statement. I agree - samples should be > available for science, but that's not what happens. Science gets what > science gets, and the rest gets sold. You can't justify the dicing up > of large meteorites with "science," because cutting a meteorite > doesn't mean that more will go to an institution. In most cases, > dealers give the same small samples to science because they want to > sell as much as they can. > I know, there are exceptions. Most cases, though. > >> The criticism and condescension exhibited by some meteorite collectors over >> the collecting or curatorial preferences of others leaves me feeling >> uncomfortable. > > Condescending? I'm not trying to be. I'm legitimately worried by > this change that's taking place. People seem genuinely more > interested in the money of meteorites than what got me interested in > them all those years ago. Do you remember that little kid at > Butterfields, Darryl? I try to keep him in mind. > > And I know, Joe needs the cash. It sucks, and he's entitled
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
>>Are your *replies* ever shorter than three *paragraphs* in *length*??<< They are rather long winded, but I'm finding myself agreeing with a lot of his points. GeoZay __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
Are your *replies* ever shorter than three *paragraphs* in *length*?? Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® -Original Message- From: Jason Utas Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:12:11 To: Meteorite-list Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices I wouldn't expect anything less from a dealer, with few exceptions. The point, Darryl, is that I wouldn't care if it's the largest stone or the smallest one - and I know for a fact that there are larger stones from this fall that have already been found. Just...look at those photos. It's a beautiful stone. > --Meteorites are necessarily subdivided to assist researchers in their work; > --No true meteorite lover would thwart such research by preventing the > subdivision of their specimen; Broken side or not, it's a beautiful stone, and it's a shame to see it cut. Yes, samples of falls are always required for analysis and study, and I'm always willing to give up that share. You imply that we're against it. And there's a hell of a big difference between giving 20 grams (or more) to science and slicing up a stone to sell to collectors. > --Joe's stone was already subdivided by atmospheric forces. It was > incomplete and I do not comprehend why the supposed largest stone needs to > be preserved as found; The main justification that I've seen so for for cutting it is that 'it's a broken stone - it should be cut anyways.' Two or three people have brought this up. Practically all meteorites are "subdivided by atmospheric forces." You seem to be implying that a complete fusion crust would be enough to warrant not cutting it. Look at the photographs, Darryl. It's a beautiful stone. I used to be of the mentality that 'if it's not complete, it's not worth getting.' But lately, I've been seeing larger fragments of beautiful fresh falls, and I've stopped caring so much. A broken side on a meteorite is a window into the interior of what's likely a four and a half billion year old time capsule. Especially with a breccia like this stone...a broken side doesn't detract. Yes, you might get a few dollars less per gram. As a collector, that makes it all the more appealing to me. > The > comparison of Mineral Point to the Mona Lisa (chasing the alliteration) does > not hold up to scrutiny. Meteorites are not paintings---which are typically > not cut apart, except by art critics. The only place I see the analogy actually failing is with regards to the fact that science always needs a piece of a given meteorite, so you always have to 'cut that corner off.' I would argue that we should cut meteorites up about as often as paintings are shredded, with few exceptions. If there's scientific work to be done, great, cut it. If not...cutting up stones for money and so that 'everyone can have a piece'... Darryl, you say that cutting stones up for science is a good thing - but that's such a vague statement. I agree - samples should be available for science, but that's not what happens. Science gets what science gets, and the rest gets sold. You can't justify the dicing up of large meteorites with "science," because cutting a meteorite doesn't mean that more will go to an institution. In most cases, dealers give the same small samples to science because they want to sell as much as they can. I know, there are exceptions. Most cases, though. > The criticism and condescension exhibited by some meteorite collectors over > the collecting or curatorial preferences of others leaves me feeling > uncomfortable. Condescending? I'm not trying to be. I'm legitimately worried by this change that's taking place. People seem genuinely more interested in the money of meteorites than what got me interested in them all those years ago. Do you remember that little kid at Butterfields, Darryl? I try to keep him in mind. And I know, Joe needs the cash. It sucks, and he's entitled to grind the stone into dust if he wants to - hell, he'd probably get more out of it per gram if he did, selling it in mg-sized samples. But those photos show a beautiful stone. Broken or not, I wouldn't cut it. And it's not going to science, so that's no justification whatsoever. Jason On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Darryl Pitt wrote: > > > I would prefer not getting into this fray, but I believe something needs to > be said here. While I also personally prefer complete specimens: > > --Meteorites are necessarily subdivided to assist researchers in their work; > --No true meteorite lover would thwart such research by preventing the > subdivision of their specimen; > --Joe's stone was already subdivided by atmospheric forces. It was > incomplete and I do not comprehend why the s
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
I wouldn't expect anything less from a dealer, with few exceptions. The point, Darryl, is that I wouldn't care if it's the largest stone or the smallest one - and I know for a fact that there are larger stones from this fall that have already been found. Just...look at those photos. It's a beautiful stone. > --Meteorites are necessarily subdivided to assist researchers in their work; > --No true meteorite lover would thwart such research by preventing the > subdivision of their specimen; Broken side or not, it's a beautiful stone, and it's a shame to see it cut. Yes, samples of falls are always required for analysis and study, and I'm always willing to give up that share. You imply that we're against it. And there's a hell of a big difference between giving 20 grams (or more) to science and slicing up a stone to sell to collectors. > --Joe's stone was already subdivided by atmospheric forces. It was > incomplete and I do not comprehend why the supposed largest stone needs to > be preserved as found; The main justification that I've seen so for for cutting it is that 'it's a broken stone - it should be cut anyways.' Two or three people have brought this up. Practically all meteorites are "subdivided by atmospheric forces." You seem to be implying that a complete fusion crust would be enough to warrant not cutting it. Look at the photographs, Darryl. It's a beautiful stone. I used to be of the mentality that 'if it's not complete, it's not worth getting.' But lately, I've been seeing larger fragments of beautiful fresh falls, and I've stopped caring so much. A broken side on a meteorite is a window into the interior of what's likely a four and a half billion year old time capsule. Especially with a breccia like this stone...a broken side doesn't detract. Yes, you might get a few dollars less per gram. As a collector, that makes it all the more appealing to me. > The > comparison of Mineral Point to the Mona Lisa (chasing the alliteration) does > not hold up to scrutiny. Meteorites are not paintings---which are typically > not cut apart, except by art critics. The only place I see the analogy actually failing is with regards to the fact that science always needs a piece of a given meteorite, so you always have to 'cut that corner off.' I would argue that we should cut meteorites up about as often as paintings are shredded, with few exceptions. If there's scientific work to be done, great, cut it. If not...cutting up stones for money and so that 'everyone can have a piece'... Darryl, you say that cutting stones up for science is a good thing - but that's such a vague statement. I agree - samples should be available for science, but that's not what happens. Science gets what science gets, and the rest gets sold. You can't justify the dicing up of large meteorites with "science," because cutting a meteorite doesn't mean that more will go to an institution. In most cases, dealers give the same small samples to science because they want to sell as much as they can. I know, there are exceptions. Most cases, though. > The criticism and condescension exhibited by some meteorite collectors over > the collecting or curatorial preferences of others leaves me feeling > uncomfortable. Condescending? I'm not trying to be. I'm legitimately worried by this change that's taking place. People seem genuinely more interested in the money of meteorites than what got me interested in them all those years ago. Do you remember that little kid at Butterfields, Darryl? I try to keep him in mind. And I know, Joe needs the cash. It sucks, and he's entitled to grind the stone into dust if he wants to - hell, he'd probably get more out of it per gram if he did, selling it in mg-sized samples. But those photos show a beautiful stone. Broken or not, I wouldn't cut it. And it's not going to science, so that's no justification whatsoever. Jason On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Darryl Pitt wrote: > > > I would prefer not getting into this fray, but I believe something needs to > be said here. While I also personally prefer complete specimens: > > --Meteorites are necessarily subdivided to assist researchers in their work; > --No true meteorite lover would thwart such research by preventing the > subdivision of their specimen; > --Joe's stone was already subdivided by atmospheric forces. It was > incomplete and I do not comprehend why the supposed largest stone needs to > be preserved as found; > > I am personally in awe of those singular specimens which I believe can be > framed as "natural sculpture from outer space." But that's just me. The > comparison of Mineral Point to the Mona Lisa (chasing the alliteration) does > not hold up to scrutiny. Meteorites are not paintings---which are typically > not cut apart, except by art critics. > > The criticism and condescension exhibited by some meteorite collectors over > the collecting or curatorial preferences of others leaves me feeling > uncomf
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
I would prefer not getting into this fray, but I believe something needs to be said here. While I also personally prefer complete specimens: --Meteorites are necessarily subdivided to assist researchers in their work; --No true meteorite lover would thwart such research by preventing the subdivision of their specimen; --Joe's stone was already subdivided by atmospheric forces. It was incomplete and I do not comprehend why the supposed largest stone needs to be preserved as found; I am personally in awe of those singular specimens which I believe can be framed as "natural sculpture from outer space." But that's just me. The comparison of Mineral Point to the Mona Lisa (chasing the alliteration) does not hold up to scrutiny. Meteorites are not paintings---which are typically not cut apart, except by art critics. The criticism and condescension exhibited by some meteorite collectors over the collecting or curatorial preferences of others leaves me feeling uncomfortable. Wishing everyone a terrific weekend / Darryl On Apr 30, 2010, at 1:00 AM, Jason Utas wrote: You don't seem to understand; I don't care about the price; $60/g is $60/g, and I wouldn't buy any slices for $10/g. Well, at that price, I might get some to resell, but I wouldn't keep them in the collection -- it's not what I collect. Prices on this fall will...fall, as they always do, and they'll likely settle in the $20/g range, as they usually do. Prices in the initial few weeks to months are always irrationally high - that's something I've come to accept over the past few years. You're simply advocating collectors' right to a piece of the fall, which I sympathize with to an extent - yes, I would like a piece too. But I wouldn't cut up a beautiful 300g stone to accomplish that goal. What I'm peeved about is the idea that there are people here who "love" meteorites and yet who see nothing wrong with cutting a beautiful stone up. They will ask for $60/g for their "dream" stone, and claim that it's priceless in the next email. There's a reason the Louvre isn't taking a pair of shears to the Mona Lisa, and asking $1million/cm^2. Yeah, they'd get more than it's "worth" ($4 billion, 81 million at that price per square centimeter. Ok, maybe it's worth more than that. It doesn't lessen the relevance of the analogy.). ...But all you'd have to show for it are a bunch of little bits indistinguishable from all of the others. $500/g, $60/g, $0.50/g, it's all the same. Little slices of rock from a stone that used to be beautiful. They're worth nothing to me. Jeff titled his recent movie "The Wonder of Meteorites." Perhaps we should look at them with a little more wonder, and a little less "gotta catch 'em all" mentality. Unless I'm lucky enough to head over to WI in a month or so with my dad and we happen to find a stone, I doubt I'll ever own one. And I'm fine with that. Regards, Jason On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Gary Chase wrote: Now we have everyone complaining that Joe cut up his stone and sold it for $60 a gram. WTF? that sure is a lot better than $500 a gram and did some collectors a favor by allowing them to acquire this fall at a much more reasonable price than "meteoritemen" inflated prices. Wishing for a second season of Meteorite Men? Be careful what you wish for. If you did not like the prices of this fall just wait until after season 2 of this train wreck. Gary _ Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@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@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@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
Hi Gary, Opinions differ. Michael On 4/29/10 9:28 PM, "Gary Chase" wrote: > Wishing for a second season of Meteorite Men? Be careful what you wish for. > If you did not like the prices of this fall just wait until after season 2 of > this train wreck. > > Gary __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
You don't seem to understand; I don't care about the price; $60/g is $60/g, and I wouldn't buy any slices for $10/g. Well, at that price, I might get some to resell, but I wouldn't keep them in the collection -- it's not what I collect. Prices on this fall will...fall, as they always do, and they'll likely settle in the $20/g range, as they usually do. Prices in the initial few weeks to months are always irrationally high - that's something I've come to accept over the past few years. You're simply advocating collectors' right to a piece of the fall, which I sympathize with to an extent - yes, I would like a piece too. But I wouldn't cut up a beautiful 300g stone to accomplish that goal. What I'm peeved about is the idea that there are people here who "love" meteorites and yet who see nothing wrong with cutting a beautiful stone up. They will ask for $60/g for their "dream" stone, and claim that it's priceless in the next email. There's a reason the Louvre isn't taking a pair of shears to the Mona Lisa, and asking $1million/cm^2. Yeah, they'd get more than it's "worth" ($4 billion, 81 million at that price per square centimeter. Ok, maybe it's worth more than that. It doesn't lessen the relevance of the analogy.). ...But all you'd have to show for it are a bunch of little bits indistinguishable from all of the others. $500/g, $60/g, $0.50/g, it's all the same. Little slices of rock from a stone that used to be beautiful. They're worth nothing to me. Jeff titled his recent movie "The Wonder of Meteorites." Perhaps we should look at them with a little more wonder, and a little less "gotta catch 'em all" mentality. Unless I'm lucky enough to head over to WI in a month or so with my dad and we happen to find a stone, I doubt I'll ever own one. And I'm fine with that. Regards, Jason On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Gary Chase wrote: > > Now we have everyone complaining that Joe cut up his stone and sold it for > $60 a gram. WTF? that sure is a lot better than $500 a gram and did some > collectors a favor by allowing them to acquire this fall at a much more > reasonable price than "meteoritemen" inflated prices. > > Wishing for a second season of Meteorite Men? Be careful what you wish for. > If you did not like the prices of this fall just wait until after season 2 of > this train wreck. > > Gary > _ > Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 > __ > Visit the Archives at > http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@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@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Wisconsin Prices
Now we have everyone complaining that Joe cut up his stone and sold it for $60 a gram. WTF? that sure is a lot better than $500 a gram and did some collectors a favor by allowing them to acquire this fall at a much more reasonable price than "meteoritemen" inflated prices. Wishing for a second season of Meteorite Men? Be careful what you wish for. If you did not like the prices of this fall just wait until after season 2 of this train wreck. Gary _ Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
