[meteorite-list] follow-up finds and their documentation

[John Divelbiss]

Hello all,   I'm about to ask one of those wandering (also wondering) questions again...one that probably won't be answered to everyone's satisfaction, especially mine. Here goes...   With all the latest Campos, Sikhote Alins, Kainez, Gao, Gold Basin, and others (I'm sure) being found these days...what (if any) verification and documentation is done with these latest finds of known meteorites. Are finders required/supposed to follow any particular steps to comply with the rules(whatever they are) of the Society that should eventually affect the total weights for these known falls/finds. Is the documentation of these and other "follow-up" finds out of control these days with the interest of meteorites being so high, and the desire to find more specimens paralleling that interest? I'm just curious. It doesn't bother me one way or the other...I just find the issue very daunting from a documentation point of view.   I suppose a newly found Sikhote Alin looks like the ones found years before...and that most buyers look at it and say that is a SA and would buy it. Is it documented and added it to a running total? Is it supposed to be? Campos are also somewhat distinct in their appearance, but I'm not sure I could tell if one is for sure...if someone asked. The stones are often distinct in their appearance for a given name meteorite, and most buyers know what they are looking at...but (for example)some Gold Basin look just like many NWA's found in recent years. Weathered...and old looking.   The source of supplier is always the key for us buyers...we have to have trust. The IMCA helps this situation in my opinion. Another key is to visually recognize the look of a particular meteorite from experience. A problem with this is that the experience level for recognizing a given meteorite can have a wide range within a group of buyers.   Notice I did not lump NWA's into this because it becomes even more gray as you look at them...from my simple mind's perspective. However, the scrutiny is much higher for them than the others...even though the level of "documentation" maybe the same...none, other than it looks like the others and were found in the vicinty of the original finds.     Be gentle,   John