Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion
Well, technically, I'd say, as long as the 2-fall-hypothesis isn't established, and it doesn't happen that often, that within short time in the same place two meteorite falls, we have to count all pieces found there to Chiang Khan. Best, Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Michael L Blood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 24. März 2008 04:49 An: Martin Altmann; Meteorite List Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion Hi Martin, To me, the important question is how much of this material is The same fall. Michael on 3/23/08 4:41 PM, Martin Altmann at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, there is also an inconsistency in the last Catalogue of Meteorites itself. In the header of the entry the tkw of Chiang Khan is listed as 367g but in the distribution of the specimens in the same entry are listed pieces in a total weight of 3279grams. (Largest amount at UCLA with 2588.4g there, and the piece of 800g in the University of Bangkok isn't mentioned). So together with the Ex-Haag-piece and Oliver's finds - he's moving at the moment, will ask him as soon as he has an Internet access again, how many grams in total - we have at least 6kg. Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Michael L Blood Gesendet: Montag, 24. März 2008 00:25 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin Altmann; Meteorite List Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion Hi Dave all, Regarding your post below My information regarding TKW of the Chiang-Khan fall is from The primary finder and author of the web page cited by Martin Altmann: http://www.meteorite-oliver.com/About_Chiang_Khan/about_chiang_khan.html Of particular interest is the comment therein: Nobody was able anymore to give precise indications as to the exact date of the event. Some 20 years ago it was, so they say, in the month of November, without doubt - that's what I was told in the villages of the strewn field. Whatever it was that happened then - one is led to presume a second meteorite fall on the same day or on the day after. According to recent research (isotope analysis), the two large specimens, which are in private Collection and in Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, do not originate from the Chiang-Khan fall. They are believed to have been transported into Thailand from Laos. Two small pieces from Thailand were analyzed, one is H4 tending to H5; one was determined to be H5 in Japan, whereas the large pieces are H6. Most of all, the noble gas contents of the large specimens differ extremely from those of the Chiang-Khan pieces! Please note that this is also weighted by the comments by Jeff Grossman Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:58 PM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] More on Chiang Khan The Meteoritical Bulletin does publish announcements of new masses when they are significant. Submit the report to the editor. You will need good evidence that the additional mass is really part of same fall. Please also note that I have every reason to believe that both Bob Haag and Matt Morgan believe the piece in reference is part of the Chiang-Khan fall. However, this believe might be weighted against The above comments (and I acknowledge I could be wrong on this). I recognized your reference of source for purchase as a dealer was Almost certainly intended to protect me from any perception of shenanigans In this matter - and I thank you for your intent. However, I was fully aware Of all of the above comments and felt confident the major finder and the Meteoritical Bulletin were correct in their assessment of related falls, just as I am confident there is no intention to deceive, whatsoever, on the part of Bob Haag or Matt Morgan and that their belief in the authenticity of the stone mentioned is both sincere and reasonable. People will have to decide for themselves whom is correct and whom is in error. I sided with the primary finders and the Meteoritical Bulletin. I see no way to resolve this without individually typing the stone, but even that, like the Baygoria cluster Er... controversy will not be conclusive if this (other?) fall was also submitted and originally included as part of the Chiang-Khan fall, anyway - but the Meteoritical Bulletin does not see it as such. Sincerely, Michael Blood on 3/22/08 6:39 PM, Dave Gheesling at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt List, First, Matt, thanks for the info and congrats on having that terrific specimen in your already spectacular collection...simply superb. This prompts a second question, which is Why is there not a means to 'officially' correct the record when a fall or find turns out to have a dramatically different TKW at some point after the formal
Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion
The Meteoritical Bulletin obviously feels differently, as do the Primary field collectors - and so do I. Best wishes, Michael on 3/24/08 5:07 AM, Martin Altmann at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, technically, I'd say, as long as the 2-fall-hypothesis isn't established, and it doesn't happen that often, that within short time in the same place two meteorite falls, we have to count all pieces found there to Chiang Khan. Best, Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Michael L Blood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 24. März 2008 04:49 An: Martin Altmann; Meteorite List Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion Hi Martin, To me, the important question is how much of this material is The same fall. Michael on 3/23/08 4:41 PM, Martin Altmann at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, there is also an inconsistency in the last Catalogue of Meteorites itself. In the header of the entry the tkw of Chiang Khan is listed as 367g but in the distribution of the specimens in the same entry are listed pieces in a total weight of 3279grams. (Largest amount at UCLA with 2588.4g there, and the piece of 800g in the University of Bangkok isn't mentioned). So together with the Ex-Haag-piece and Oliver's finds - he's moving at the moment, will ask him as soon as he has an Internet access again, how many grams in total - we have at least 6kg. Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Michael L Blood Gesendet: Montag, 24. März 2008 00:25 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin Altmann; Meteorite List Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion Hi Dave all, Regarding your post below My information regarding TKW of the Chiang-Khan fall is from The primary finder and author of the web page cited by Martin Altmann: http://www.meteorite-oliver.com/About_Chiang_Khan/about_chiang_khan.html Of particular interest is the comment therein: Nobody was able anymore to give precise indications as to the exact date of the event. Some 20 years ago it was, so they say, in the month of November, without doubt - that's what I was told in the villages of the strewn field. Whatever it was that happened then - one is led to presume a second meteorite fall on the same day or on the day after. According to recent research (isotope analysis), the two large specimens, which are in private Collection and in Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, do not originate from the Chiang-Khan fall. They are believed to have been transported into Thailand from Laos. Two small pieces from Thailand were analyzed, one is H4 tending to H5; one was determined to be H5 in Japan, whereas the large pieces are H6. Most of all, the noble gas contents of the large specimens differ extremely from those of the Chiang-Khan pieces! Please note that this is also weighted by the comments by Jeff Grossman Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:58 PM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] More on Chiang Khan The Meteoritical Bulletin does publish announcements of new masses when they are significant. Submit the report to the editor. You will need good evidence that the additional mass is really part of same fall. Please also note that I have every reason to believe that both Bob Haag and Matt Morgan believe the piece in reference is part of the Chiang-Khan fall. However, this believe might be weighted against The above comments (and I acknowledge I could be wrong on this). I recognized your reference of source for purchase as a dealer was Almost certainly intended to protect me from any perception of shenanigans In this matter - and I thank you for your intent. However, I was fully aware Of all of the above comments and felt confident the major finder and the Meteoritical Bulletin were correct in their assessment of related falls, just as I am confident there is no intention to deceive, whatsoever, on the part of Bob Haag or Matt Morgan and that their belief in the authenticity of the stone mentioned is both sincere and reasonable. People will have to decide for themselves whom is correct and whom is in error. I sided with the primary finders and the Meteoritical Bulletin. I see no way to resolve this without individually typing the stone, but even that, like the Baygoria cluster Er... controversy will not be conclusive if this (other?) fall was also submitted and originally included as part of the Chiang-Khan fall, anyway - but the Meteoritical Bulletin does not see it as such. Sincerely, Michael Blood on 3/22/08 6:39 PM, Dave Gheesling at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt List, First, Matt, thanks for the info and congrats on having that terrific specimen in your already spectacular
Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion
Hi Dave all, Regarding your post below My information regarding TKW of the Chiang-Khan fall is from The primary finder and author of the web page cited by Martin Altmann: http://www.meteorite-oliver.com/About_Chiang_Khan/about_chiang_khan.html Of particular interest is the comment therein: Nobody was able anymore to give precise indications as to the exact date of the event. Some 20 years ago it was, so they say, in the month of November, without doubt - that's what I was told in the villages of the strewn field. Whatever it was that happened then - one is led to presume a second meteorite fall on the same day or on the day after. According to recent research (isotope analysis), the two large specimens, which are in private Collection and in Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, do not originate from the Chiang-Khan fall. They are believed to have been transported into Thailand from Laos. Two small pieces from Thailand were analyzed, one is H4 tending to H5; one was determined to be H5 in Japan, whereas the large pieces are H6. Most of all, the noble gas contents of the large specimens differ extremely from those of the Chiang-Khan pieces! Please note that this is also weighted by the comments by Jeff Grossman Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:58 PM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] More on Chiang Khan The Meteoritical Bulletin does publish announcements of new masses when they are significant. Submit the report to the editor. You will need good evidence that the additional mass is really part of same fall. Please also note that I have every reason to believe that both Bob Haag and Matt Morgan believe the piece in reference is part of the Chiang-Khan fall. However, this believe might be weighted against The above comments (and I acknowledge I could be wrong on this). I recognized your reference of source for purchase as a dealer was Almost certainly intended to protect me from any perception of shenanigans In this matter - and I thank you for your intent. However, I was fully aware Of all of the above comments and felt confident the major finder and the Meteoritical Bulletin were correct in their assessment of related falls, just as I am confident there is no intention to deceive, whatsoever, on the part of Bob Haag or Matt Morgan and that their belief in the authenticity of the stone mentioned is both sincere and reasonable. People will have to decide for themselves whom is correct and whom is in error. I sided with the primary finders and the Meteoritical Bulletin. I see no way to resolve this without individually typing the stone, but even that, like the Baygoria cluster Er... controversy will not be conclusive if this (other?) fall was also submitted and originally included as part of the Chiang-Khan fall, anyway - but the Meteoritical Bulletin does not see it as such. Sincerely, Michael Blood on 3/22/08 6:39 PM, Dave Gheesling at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt List, First, Matt, thanks for the info and congrats on having that terrific specimen in your already spectacular collection...simply superb. This prompts a second question, which is Why is there not a means to 'officially' correct the record when a fall or find turns out to have a dramatically different TKW at some point after the formal classification has cleared? I'm not talking about confusion in the early stages of mining a strewn field, but rather about falls and/or finds where in many cases decades have passed since the initial discoveries and, for all intents and purposes, everything that will ever be found has been found (a slippery slope of a generalization, but hopefully this makes sense). There are many, many such examples, and I'll post a link to only one below (read Remarks in my Djermaia listing): http://www.fallingrocks.com/Collections/Djermaia.htm I purchased my Chiang-Khan from a dealer without much research, which was completely my responsibility, to be clear. That said, it was marketed as representing something approaching 5% of the recovered material from that fall (which, again, is officially recorded as 367 grams when we know that there is one stone of almost twice that size and speculation on the list is that the TKW is actually likely to be near 7 kilograms). We had some banter about the finer points of orientation a couple of weeks ago and how that has an impact in the marketplace, and it seems to me that this is at least as large an issue. And, forgetting the market altogether, shouldn't there perhaps be a more focused effort to get the record straight for the benefit of history? I'm probably missing something out of ignorance here... Thanks in advance for thoughts and comments...always trying to learn something new. Dave __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list
Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion
In fact, there is also an inconsistency in the last Catalogue of Meteorites itself. In the header of the entry the tkw of Chiang Khan is listed as 367g but in the distribution of the specimens in the same entry are listed pieces in a total weight of 3279grams. (Largest amount at UCLA with 2588.4g there, and the piece of 800g in the University of Bangkok isn't mentioned). So together with the Ex-Haag-piece and Oliver's finds - he's moving at the moment, will ask him as soon as he has an Internet access again, how many grams in total - we have at least 6kg. Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Michael L Blood Gesendet: Montag, 24. März 2008 00:25 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin Altmann; Meteorite List Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion Hi Dave all, Regarding your post below My information regarding TKW of the Chiang-Khan fall is from The primary finder and author of the web page cited by Martin Altmann: http://www.meteorite-oliver.com/About_Chiang_Khan/about_chiang_khan.html Of particular interest is the comment therein: Nobody was able anymore to give precise indications as to the exact date of the event. Some 20 years ago it was, so they say, in the month of November, without doubt - that's what I was told in the villages of the strewn field. Whatever it was that happened then - one is led to presume a second meteorite fall on the same day or on the day after. According to recent research (isotope analysis), the two large specimens, which are in private Collection and in Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, do not originate from the Chiang-Khan fall. They are believed to have been transported into Thailand from Laos. Two small pieces from Thailand were analyzed, one is H4 tending to H5; one was determined to be H5 in Japan, whereas the large pieces are H6. Most of all, the noble gas contents of the large specimens differ extremely from those of the Chiang-Khan pieces! Please note that this is also weighted by the comments by Jeff Grossman Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:58 PM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] More on Chiang Khan The Meteoritical Bulletin does publish announcements of new masses when they are significant. Submit the report to the editor. You will need good evidence that the additional mass is really part of same fall. Please also note that I have every reason to believe that both Bob Haag and Matt Morgan believe the piece in reference is part of the Chiang-Khan fall. However, this believe might be weighted against The above comments (and I acknowledge I could be wrong on this). I recognized your reference of source for purchase as a dealer was Almost certainly intended to protect me from any perception of shenanigans In this matter - and I thank you for your intent. However, I was fully aware Of all of the above comments and felt confident the major finder and the Meteoritical Bulletin were correct in their assessment of related falls, just as I am confident there is no intention to deceive, whatsoever, on the part of Bob Haag or Matt Morgan and that their belief in the authenticity of the stone mentioned is both sincere and reasonable. People will have to decide for themselves whom is correct and whom is in error. I sided with the primary finders and the Meteoritical Bulletin. I see no way to resolve this without individually typing the stone, but even that, like the Baygoria cluster Er... controversy will not be conclusive if this (other?) fall was also submitted and originally included as part of the Chiang-Khan fall, anyway - but the Meteoritical Bulletin does not see it as such. Sincerely, Michael Blood on 3/22/08 6:39 PM, Dave Gheesling at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt List, First, Matt, thanks for the info and congrats on having that terrific specimen in your already spectacular collection...simply superb. This prompts a second question, which is Why is there not a means to 'officially' correct the record when a fall or find turns out to have a dramatically different TKW at some point after the formal classification has cleared? I'm not talking about confusion in the early stages of mining a strewn field, but rather about falls and/or finds where in many cases decades have passed since the initial discoveries and, for all intents and purposes, everything that will ever be found has been found (a slippery slope of a generalization, but hopefully this makes sense). There are many, many such examples, and I'll post a link to only one below (read Remarks in my Djermaia listing): http://www.fallingrocks.com/Collections/Djermaia.htm I purchased my Chiang-Khan from a dealer without much research, which was completely my responsibility, to be clear. That said, it was marketed as representing something approaching 5
Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion
Michael List, My anonymous reference to you as a dealer was to protect you from any perception of shenanigans on your part, though by no means did I ever have that perception myself (again, the research was and is as much the responsibility of the buyer as it is of the seller, and the information circulating as a result of the TKW question and the Chiang-Khan example have been well worth the trade in and of themselves). This was just one of a couple of examples I threw out to get a topic in circulation, and Jeff gave a more than adequate answer to the question. It seems that there's a certain responsibility on just about everyone involved to properly record the outcome of these events and that the science side is willing to do whatever they need to, within reason, to get the record straight so to speak (symbiotic, as it should be). Even the uncertain stories in the world of meteorites are part of the fun and mystique... Dave -Original Message- From: Michael L Blood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 7:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin Altmann; Meteorite List Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion Hi Dave all, Regarding your post below My information regarding TKW of the Chiang-Khan fall is from The primary finder and author of the web page cited by Martin Altmann: http://www.meteorite-oliver.com/About_Chiang_Khan/about_chiang_khan.html Of particular interest is the comment therein: Nobody was able anymore to give precise indications as to the exact date of the event. Some 20 years ago it was, so they say, in the month of November, without doubt - that's what I was told in the villages of the strewn field. Whatever it was that happened then - one is led to presume a second meteorite fall on the same day or on the day after. According to recent research (isotope analysis), the two large specimens, which are in private Collection and in Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, do not originate from the Chiang-Khan fall. They are believed to have been transported into Thailand from Laos. Two small pieces from Thailand were analyzed, one is H4 tending to H5; one was determined to be H5 in Japan, whereas the large pieces are H6. Most of all, the noble gas contents of the large specimens differ extremely from those of the Chiang-Khan pieces! Please note that this is also weighted by the comments by Jeff Grossman Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:58 PM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] More on Chiang Khan The Meteoritical Bulletin does publish announcements of new masses when they are significant. Submit the report to the editor. You will need good evidence that the additional mass is really part of same fall. Please also note that I have every reason to believe that both Bob Haag and Matt Morgan believe the piece in reference is part of the Chiang-Khan fall. However, this believe might be weighted against The above comments (and I acknowledge I could be wrong on this). I recognized your reference of source for purchase as a dealer was Almost certainly intended to protect me from any perception of shenanigans In this matter - and I thank you for your intent. However, I was fully aware Of all of the above comments and felt confident the major finder and the Meteoritical Bulletin were correct in their assessment of related falls, just as I am confident there is no intention to deceive, whatsoever, on the part of Bob Haag or Matt Morgan and that their belief in the authenticity of the stone mentioned is both sincere and reasonable. People will have to decide for themselves whom is correct and whom is in error. I sided with the primary finders and the Meteoritical Bulletin. I see no way to resolve this without individually typing the stone, but even that, like the Baygoria cluster Er... controversy will not be conclusive if this (other?) fall was also submitted and originally included as part of the Chiang-Khan fall, anyway - but the Meteoritical Bulletin does not see it as such. Sincerely, Michael Blood on 3/22/08 6:39 PM, Dave Gheesling at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt List, First, Matt, thanks for the info and congrats on having that terrific specimen in your already spectacular collection...simply superb. This prompts a second question, which is Why is there not a means to 'officially' correct the record when a fall or find turns out to have a dramatically different TKW at some point after the formal classification has cleared? I'm not talking about confusion in the early stages of mining a strewn field, but rather about falls and/or finds where in many cases decades have passed since the initial discoveries and, for all intents and purposes, everything that will ever be found has been found (a slippery slope of a generalization, but hopefully this makes sense). There are many, many such examples
Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion
Hi Martin, To me, the important question is how much of this material is The same fall. Michael on 3/23/08 4:41 PM, Martin Altmann at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, there is also an inconsistency in the last Catalogue of Meteorites itself. In the header of the entry the tkw of Chiang Khan is listed as 367g but in the distribution of the specimens in the same entry are listed pieces in a total weight of 3279grams. (Largest amount at UCLA with 2588.4g there, and the piece of 800g in the University of Bangkok isn't mentioned). So together with the Ex-Haag-piece and Oliver's finds - he's moving at the moment, will ask him as soon as he has an Internet access again, how many grams in total - we have at least 6kg. Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Michael L Blood Gesendet: Montag, 24. März 2008 00:25 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin Altmann; Meteorite List Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion Hi Dave all, Regarding your post below My information regarding TKW of the Chiang-Khan fall is from The primary finder and author of the web page cited by Martin Altmann: http://www.meteorite-oliver.com/About_Chiang_Khan/about_chiang_khan.html Of particular interest is the comment therein: Nobody was able anymore to give precise indications as to the exact date of the event. Some 20 years ago it was, so they say, in the month of November, without doubt - that's what I was told in the villages of the strewn field. Whatever it was that happened then - one is led to presume a second meteorite fall on the same day or on the day after. According to recent research (isotope analysis), the two large specimens, which are in private Collection and in Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, do not originate from the Chiang-Khan fall. They are believed to have been transported into Thailand from Laos. Two small pieces from Thailand were analyzed, one is H4 tending to H5; one was determined to be H5 in Japan, whereas the large pieces are H6. Most of all, the noble gas contents of the large specimens differ extremely from those of the Chiang-Khan pieces! Please note that this is also weighted by the comments by Jeff Grossman Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:58 PM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] More on Chiang Khan The Meteoritical Bulletin does publish announcements of new masses when they are significant. Submit the report to the editor. You will need good evidence that the additional mass is really part of same fall. Please also note that I have every reason to believe that both Bob Haag and Matt Morgan believe the piece in reference is part of the Chiang-Khan fall. However, this believe might be weighted against The above comments (and I acknowledge I could be wrong on this). I recognized your reference of source for purchase as a dealer was Almost certainly intended to protect me from any perception of shenanigans In this matter - and I thank you for your intent. However, I was fully aware Of all of the above comments and felt confident the major finder and the Meteoritical Bulletin were correct in their assessment of related falls, just as I am confident there is no intention to deceive, whatsoever, on the part of Bob Haag or Matt Morgan and that their belief in the authenticity of the stone mentioned is both sincere and reasonable. People will have to decide for themselves whom is correct and whom is in error. I sided with the primary finders and the Meteoritical Bulletin. I see no way to resolve this without individually typing the stone, but even that, like the Baygoria cluster Er... controversy will not be conclusive if this (other?) fall was also submitted and originally included as part of the Chiang-Khan fall, anyway - but the Meteoritical Bulletin does not see it as such. Sincerely, Michael Blood on 3/22/08 6:39 PM, Dave Gheesling at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt List, First, Matt, thanks for the info and congrats on having that terrific specimen in your already spectacular collection...simply superb. This prompts a second question, which is Why is there not a means to 'officially' correct the record when a fall or find turns out to have a dramatically different TKW at some point after the formal classification has cleared? I'm not talking about confusion in the early stages of mining a strewn field, but rather about falls and/or finds where in many cases decades have passed since the initial discoveries and, for all intents and purposes, everything that will ever be found has been found (a slippery slope of a generalization, but hopefully this makes sense). There are many, many such examples, and I'll post a link to only one below (read Remarks in my
Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan
Hi Zelimir, The Catalogue itself lists: 2588.4g UCLA 224.5gBartoschewitz 189g New York Nat.Hist. 106g Washington U.S.Nat.Mus. 39g Paris Hist.Nat. 32gDu Pont 22g + 12.6g + 8.7g London, Nat.Hist. 18.2g Berlin, Humboldt-Univ. 14.82g Ottawa, Geol.Surv. 9g Tempe 7.7g Chicago, Field Mus. 5g Albuquerque Univ New Mex 2.4g Muenster Inst.f.Planetologie Not mentioned there is a 2.5kg stone in the Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok Oliver Alge found on his 3 expeditions, which took together almost 1 year, altogether 606g The material confiscated after the fall from the laotic military is lost. So we have without Haag's pieces already a tkw of ~6.4kg. Nevertheless it stays extremely difficult to get and for heaven's sake I invite the list members again to buy the remaining pieces of Oliver, as he needs the money to found his help project in the strewnfield of Chiang Khan, where he plans to move to. Especially the European members should consider to take their share on this rare offer as the USD is weak as never before and the price with 37$ per gram is quite low. Meanwhile I made new photos of the remaining pieces and will email them on request. Some of the pieces are fresh like a Juancheng and not so brownish as it seems on the pictures on Olivers page http://www.meteorite-oliver.com/index.html So if you NEED NEW PHOTOS, please E-mail. The smallest cut is sold now, the 6.25g were Bernhard's specimen and this week the 41.1g killeroriented was gone too (I send a photo of the back with the rollover lip and the only partial molten surface to The Picture of the day). Remarkably from sice is the complete crusted stone of 70grams, perhaps I should give it to captain Blood for the Tucson auction, as here in Germany most collectors have no glimpse, that they won't get a similar specimen anymore in their collectors life and the more experienced collectors in USA seems to fear complications, if they would order from another country, although it's fast, safe, easy and simple. The 23.2g fragment is the ugliest piece, concerning stainings. Extremely nice and fresh are the 12.2g broken individual and the 17.1g individual, where only a small part is missing, both have very nice black fusion crust. If they'll be gone, they'll be gone. Ask Mike Farmer, what he thinks about this price, I bet he never would give away his two little specimens at such a low price. May someone ask Rob Haag, wether and how much grams he owns in his collection? 100% of the money will be used for the help project and for that purpose. So let's go! Martin - Original Message - From: Zelimir Gabelica [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: c Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 7:56 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan Bernard, Martin, list, With all of our listees I also feel very sorry for Bernhard about the burglary. Bernhard, I wish you could rapidly overcome your angriness and re-positive again. Positiving is perhaps, in this case, considering that the good news is that the other 600 items were ignored by...ignorant burglars. But life is full of (also) nice surprises. No doubt Stefan (Ralew) will soon have some more beauties to propose you. I just remember his superb display table in Ensisheim and regret not having found time to look more closely at. Regarding Chiang Khan, I agree that these are very seldom seen as offer. There should be some nice pieces in collections or museums though. I was lucky to acquire a complete 100% crusted individual of 41 grams (probably from David New in the 1995's). Considering the mass existing in other collections (I remember Haag is mentioning having a considerable mass) I just wonder whether the TKW as mentioned in catalogs (also in Meteorites from A to Z), namely only 367 grams (total 31 pieces recovered), is correct? Did someone make a (more recent) compilation or have updated repositories ? Bernd ? Jörn ? Best wishes, Zelimir A 22:44 16/12/04 +0100, vous avez écrit : So it would be helpful, whenever someone from the list will get an offer for Chiang Khan or if he/she detects a piece of Chiang Khan on ebay to contact Bernhard, as Chiang Khan is a superrare locality, which nobody has for sale (only Oliver Alge and in his collection Bartoschewitz has some and perhaps Haag I heard) and I remember well to whome I sold specimens for Oliver. Thanks! Martin - Original Message - From: Bernhard Rems [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:24 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Burglary Hi, Just wanted to tell you that my flat has been robbed and devastated today. The thieves stole all my smaller electronical equipment, a collection of roman coins, a collection of golden coins from the Austrian Hungarian empire and other things of value. They completely ignored my meteorite collection with over 600 items, except for a small portion of meteorites that were laying on my table with the PDA and the
RE: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan
Hi, I also have a 2.4 grams Individual of Chiang Khan that I got from Oliver in trade. Cheers, Christian IMCA #2673 www.austromet.com Christian Anger Korngasse 6 2405 Bad Deutsch-Altenburg AUSTRIA email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jörn Koblitz Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 12:27 PM To: Martin Altmann; Zelimir Gabelica; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AW: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan Hello Martin and Zelimir, Additionally to what you listed, I could find the following repositories and weights for Chian Khan: 682g: Tucson, Haag Colln. 71g: Kankakee, Illinois, J.Schwade Colln. 67.9g: Zürich, J.Nauber Colln. 44g: Kanagawa, Mus. Nat. Hist. Cheers, Jörn -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Martin Altmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Dezember 2004 10:51 An: Zelimir Gabelica; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan Hi Zelimir, The Catalogue itself lists: 2588.4g UCLA 224.5gBartoschewitz 189g New York Nat.Hist. 106g Washington U.S.Nat.Mus. 39g Paris Hist.Nat. 32gDu Pont 22g + 12.6g + 8.7g London, Nat.Hist. 18.2g Berlin, Humboldt-Univ. 14.82g Ottawa, Geol.Surv. 9g Tempe 7.7g Chicago, Field Mus. 5g Albuquerque Univ New Mex 2.4g Muenster Inst.f.Planetologie Not mentioned there is a 2.5kg stone in the Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok Oliver Alge found on his 3 expeditions, which took together almost 1 year, altogether 606g The material confiscated after the fall from the laotic military is lost. So we have without Haag's pieces already a tkw of ~6.4kg. Nevertheless it stays extremely difficult to get and for heaven's sake I invite the list members again to buy the remaining pieces of Oliver, as he needs the money to found his help project in the strewnfield of Chiang Khan, where he plans to move to. Especially the European members should consider to take their share on this rare offer as the USD is weak as never before and the price with 37$ per gram is quite low. Meanwhile I made new photos of the remaining pieces and will email them on request. Some of the pieces are fresh like a Juancheng and not so brownish as it seems on the pictures on Olivers page http://www.meteorite-oliver.com/index.html So if you NEED NEW PHOTOS, please E-mail. The smallest cut is sold now, the 6.25g were Bernhard's specimen and this week the 41.1g killeroriented was gone too (I send a photo of the back with the rollover lip and the only partial molten surface to The Picture of the day). Remarkably from sice is the complete crusted stone of 70grams, perhaps I should give it to captain Blood for the Tucson auction, as here in Germany most collectors have no glimpse, that they won't get a similar specimen anymore in their collectors life and the more experienced collectors in USA seems to fear complications, if they would order from another country, although it's fast, safe, easy and simple. The 23.2g fragment is the ugliest piece, concerning stainings. Extremely nice and fresh are the 12.2g broken individual and the 17.1g individual, where only a small part is missing, both have very nice black fusion crust. If they'll be gone, they'll be gone. Ask Mike Farmer, what he thinks about this price, I bet he never would give away his two little specimens at such a low price. May someone ask Rob Haag, wether and how much grams he owns in his collection? 100% of the money will be used for the help project and for that purpose. So let's go! Martin - Original Message - From: Zelimir Gabelica [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: c Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 7:56 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan Bernard, Martin, list, With all of our listees I also feel very sorry for Bernhard about the burglary. Bernhard, I wish you could rapidly overcome your angriness and re-positive again. Positiving is perhaps, in this case, considering that the good news is that the other 600 items were ignored by...ignorant burglars. But life is full of (also) nice surprises. No doubt Stefan (Ralew) will soon have some more beauties to propose you. I just remember his superb display table in Ensisheim and regret not having found time to look more closely at. Regarding Chiang Khan, I agree that these are very seldom seen as offer. There should be some nice pieces in collections or museums though. I was lucky to acquire a complete 100% crusted individual of 41 grams (probably from David New in the 1995's). Considering the mass existing in other collections (I remember Haag is mentioning having a considerable mass) I just wonder whether the TKW as mentioned in catalogs (also in Meteorites from A to Z), namely only 367 grams (total 31 pieces recovered), is correct? Did someone make a (more
RE: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan
Me only a 1 gr. fragment take few time after the fall Matteo From: Christian Anger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:10:47 +0100 Hi, I also have a 2.4 grams Individual of Chiang Khan that I got from Oliver in trade. Cheers, Christian IMCA #2673 www.austromet.com Christian Anger Korngasse 6 2405 Bad Deutsch-Altenburg AUSTRIA email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jörn Koblitz Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 12:27 PM To: Martin Altmann; Zelimir Gabelica; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AW: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan Hello Martin and Zelimir, Additionally to what you listed, I could find the following repositories and weights for Chian Khan: 682g: Tucson, Haag Colln. 71g: Kankakee, Illinois, J.Schwade Colln. 67.9g: Zürich, J.Nauber Colln. 44g: Kanagawa, Mus. Nat. Hist. Cheers, Jörn -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Martin Altmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Dezember 2004 10:51 An: Zelimir Gabelica; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan Hi Zelimir, The Catalogue itself lists: 2588.4g UCLA 224.5gBartoschewitz 189g New York Nat.Hist. 106g Washington U.S.Nat.Mus. 39g Paris Hist.Nat. 32gDu Pont 22g + 12.6g + 8.7g London, Nat.Hist. 18.2g Berlin, Humboldt-Univ. 14.82g Ottawa, Geol.Surv. 9g Tempe 7.7g Chicago, Field Mus. 5g Albuquerque Univ New Mex 2.4g Muenster Inst.f.Planetologie Not mentioned there is a 2.5kg stone in the Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok Oliver Alge found on his 3 expeditions, which took together almost 1 year, altogether 606g The material confiscated after the fall from the laotic military is lost. So we have without Haag's pieces already a tkw of ~6.4kg. Nevertheless it stays extremely difficult to get and for heaven's sake I invite the list members again to buy the remaining pieces of Oliver, as he needs the money to found his help project in the strewnfield of Chiang Khan, where he plans to move to. Especially the European members should consider to take their share on this rare offer as the USD is weak as never before and the price with 37$ per gram is quite low. Meanwhile I made new photos of the remaining pieces and will email them on request. Some of the pieces are fresh like a Juancheng and not so brownish as it seems on the pictures on Olivers page http://www.meteorite-oliver.com/index.html So if you NEED NEW PHOTOS, please E-mail. The smallest cut is sold now, the 6.25g were Bernhard's specimen and this week the 41.1g killeroriented was gone too (I send a photo of the back with the rollover lip and the only partial molten surface to The Picture of the day). Remarkably from sice is the complete crusted stone of 70grams, perhaps I should give it to captain Blood for the Tucson auction, as here in Germany most collectors have no glimpse, that they won't get a similar specimen anymore in their collectors life and the more experienced collectors in USA seems to fear complications, if they would order from another country, although it's fast, safe, easy and simple. The 23.2g fragment is the ugliest piece, concerning stainings. Extremely nice and fresh are the 12.2g broken individual and the 17.1g individual, where only a small part is missing, both have very nice black fusion crust. If they'll be gone, they'll be gone. Ask Mike Farmer, what he thinks about this price, I bet he never would give away his two little specimens at such a low price. May someone ask Rob Haag, wether and how much grams he owns in his collection? 100% of the money will be used for the help project and for that purpose. So let's go! Martin - Original Message - From: Zelimir Gabelica [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: c Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 7:56 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan Bernard, Martin, list, With all of our listees I also feel very sorry for Bernhard about the burglary. Bernhard, I wish you could rapidly overcome your angriness and re-positive again. Positiving is perhaps, in this case, considering that the good news is that the other 600 items were ignored by...ignorant burglars. But life is full of (also) nice surprises. No doubt Stefan (Ralew) will soon have some more beauties to propose you. I just remember his superb display table in Ensisheim and regret not having found time to look more closely at. Regarding Chiang Khan, I agree that these are very seldom seen as offer. There should be some nice pieces in collections or museums though. I was lucky to acquire a complete 100% crusted individual of 41 grams (probably from David New in the 1995's). Considering the mass existing in other collections (I remember Haag is mentioning having a considerable mass) I just wonder whether the TKW as mentioned
Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan
A hunt in the fall region, one can forget. Tightest vegetation and full of hot rocks. Oliver hunted for 3 months with a detector, digging hundreds of holes - the result was: 2 stones. The larger is the 70g for sale. - Original Message - From: Herbert Raab [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 9:56 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan Jörn Koblitz wrote: 682g: Tucson, Haag Colln. Bob's Field Guide of Meteorites (1991 edition) shows an image of a nice, fusion crusted stone with a cut face, described as 682 grams: 90 x 60 x 80mm. Apparentls, the entry in Jörn's metbase refers to that. The 1997 edition shows the very same image, but the weight is now listed as 683 grams - it get's heavier with time... :-) Both editions note: ...fell in 1982 near the so-calles 'Golden Triangle' region of northern Thailand, making it an interesting place for a meteorite hunt. (...sure you're looking for rocks from the sky. Now up against the wall, Yankee...) Bob's 2003 booklet The Robert Haag Collection of Meteorites shows apparently the same stone. In the meantime, apparently a few more slices have been cut off, and the specimen is now listed as 619g. The booklet says that this is the largest recovered stone, which is apparently not quite correct, as Martin noted a there is a 2.5kg stone in the Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok. Certainly a nice fall with nice specimens... Best greetings, Herbert Raab __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan authenticity
Hi All, Several years ago, I met Oliver through some email exchanges. Oliver's interest in Chiang Khan is more than passing, and I suspect he is the world's authority on the fall. We discussed Chiang Khan years ago, and even to this day, I consider it an honor that he took the time and effort to educate me about the fall and his recovery efforts. Oliver even gave me a piece of Chiang Khan for reference. I have since gotten a much larger piece, a oriented complete individual to be more specific. And the one pictured in the auction is not too different from my own. Therefore should one question the authenticity of the piece of Chiang Khan under discusson, please know that although its looks are somewhat non-traditional, it is well within specs for this fall. Cheers, Martin H. (USA) - Original Message - From: Martin Altmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, February 22, 2004 6:24 am Subject: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan authenticity Hello list, as there were some doubts concerning the authenticity of the Chiang Khanmaterial, offered here in this list for charity purposes in Thailand by Mr.Alge, I feel, that I have to post a statement. I unconditionally warrant the authenticity of his specimens not only as a member of IMCA, but with my name as meteorite seller and collector. I know Oliver as a collector, client and as a great person for more than two years. I remember that he contacted me first looking for two meteorite samples from Austria and Thailand for his wedding rings, as he's born in Austria and his wife is from Thailand. Well, Mr.Bartoschewitz, one of the largest collectors in Germany and founder and organizator of the wellknownInternational Meteorite Fair in Gifhorn (attention! this year the show will take place from May 14th - 16th and not in October) was so kind to supplyhim wis a Chiang Khan specimen. For their honeymoon Mr.Mrs.Alge travelled to Th ailand and Oliver decided to start some investigations about the Chiang Khan fall - this first stay extended to 3 months (they are still married..)and turned to a really exciting expedition, where they did an immense and really great field work! Travelling weeks and weeks through the jungle between Laos and Thailand and holding interviews with many dozens of eyewitnesses, Oliver was not onlyable to acquire a few specimens of Chiang Khan from the locals, but also collected valuable informations about this fall, giving hints that indeedthere might be the possibility that two independent falls may have occured in the same region within a short period of time. On his next trip, which took 4 months, he was hunting by his own with a detector, digging hundreds of holes as there are many iron bearing rocks,and was lucky to find two specimens by his own. Meanwhile he travelled some more times to Thailand, acquired more ChiangKhan m aterial, but now the region is empty. He showed some of his finds to the University in Bangkog, where a stone of 2kg is kept, which is not listed in the Catalogue (they directly wanted to buy the specimens from him) and Mr.Bartoschewitz, one of the few collectors,who has a larger amount of reference material of Chiang Khan in his collection compared the samples and reported, as far as I know, the newfinds to the Met.Soc. I personally have no doubts neither, that the material is authentic. I was helping Oliver to sell some samples and I had also the privilege to slice up one stone. The specimens I had display an astonishing quite fresh fusion crust. I remember especially a fantastic oriented nose-coned stone with radial flow lines on the apex. The specimen I cut, showed a fine brecciation with lighter smaller clastssimilar to some Juanchengs for example. Some of the stones you still can find listed on my old homepage: http://www.meteorite-martin.de/chondrit_meteorit.html and there you can see, that the stones are much better looking than on the pictures, which Oliver made for his new Chiang-Khan-site. Some of the specimens on my page were sold and Oliver decided to keep the rest of them in his own collection - so one can be glad, that he now changed his mind and is offering again some of the material and this for a reallynoble purpose! The entry in the Catalogue for Meteorites is inconsistent - there is given a tkw of 367grams, but in the same article is listed a 2.5kg stone at the UCLA. With all the efforts it took for Oliver to recover his material, with the unique circumstances of the fall (or falls) and the extremly limited availability of Chiang Khan, in my eyes his price of 37$/g is firmly to low. I was selling Chiang Khan at 55Euro/g and if you compare this price withother falls, which are easy available as for example Barwell starting at 80$/g, Alfianello or even famous Park Forest, you will agree. Last but not least, for all those who like those car-,
