Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
High-grade, profound discussion apart from certain personal disagreements. There surely is more to it than what just meets the eye, regarding the bottom line. Keep on talking, guys. I am discovering valid arguments on both ends of the rope here, and can only hope that the discussion will be more refined as time goes on. This is not boring or unneeded at all - this is an overdue conversation which I (and others) are pleased to listen to, and may be, even interfere at a point. For the benefit not only of a hobby (P.S.: I am just a collector, and neither a dealer nor a meteorite scientist), but for an overall good development of the field of meteoritics from a broader perspective, and in historical context and continuity. Alex Berlin/Germany __ 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] Pairing discussion/questions
I really beg your pardon. Do you really believe that one field season of Ansmet cost the tax-payer not more than 600,000$ ?? Here, inflation... just an example, alone NASA, gave from 2002 on a grant to ANSMET of 650,000$ a year for 3 years, additionally to the NSF-funds. http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/G/20021870.html NSF alone spends this season 7.5 million USD for the tractor train of the South Pole traverse, 3 millions for additional field equipment, 5 millions for new airfield vehicles at the McMurdo station, as well as 3 million to improve the heating system. 3.3 millions for transportation of people and cargo, 1.7 million for emergency vehicles. 5.0 million for two new fuel tanks, and so on It costs, what it costs. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jeff Grossman Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 17:23 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions I can now report with some authority that the total cost of 30+ years of collecting by ANSMET has been in the range of $20 million. Considering the record of scientific achievements that has been built on this collection of 20,000 specimens, I would have to say it has been a bargain. Jeff >>Make your homework. How many different meteorites do we have from >>Antarctica after a third of a century hunting and spending billions >>of USD? 7000. >This statement, appearing in some of the recent emails, is >wrong. There are over 16,000 classified meteorites from the ANSMET >expeditions, plus a few thousand unclassified. Counting the >Japanese, Chinese,European, >Korean, and minor collections, There ~27,000 classified Antarctic >meteorites, and probably close to 20,000 not yet classified (mostly >in the Japanese and Chinese collections). And where in the world >did this figure of billions of dollars being spent by the US to >collect its 20,000 meteorites come from? > >Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven >to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites. They >probably occur as subjects of scientific publications at >10x the >frequency as NWA meteorites (I posted statistics on this some years >ago, but can't locate it at the moment). This is because the main >masses are well curated. > >Jeff Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ 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] Pairing discussion/questions
ng Course I know - and everybody in the meteorite biz has sometimes troubles with especially inert examples of such scientists, Thanks God there are many, many others... But what the scientist side often doesn't understand, is, that the side, which is delivering them their objects of research, has to work completely different than they are used to work. They are under the pressure of permanent success, if they want to make a living from their work. Look, such a hunter has to pick up, and to find at all, a thousand meteorite pieces in the field, until once, lets say an R-chondrite is among them, wherefrom in the end, after deducting all his expenses, costs, taxes, will remain less, than the above mentioned scientist has in a single month. For a stone, which costs a million++, if found and extracted from Antarctica and is hundred times more rare than the fattest brilliant in the crown jewels of England. We simply have a structural crises in that system. The public side has all in all revoked the symbiosis with the private sector, which worked perfectly for almost two centuries and that at a point of time, where the private sector brought almost per year as many new finds, as before was found in a whole century, and where the costs dropped to a minute fracture of all the centuries before. Parallely also - without Antarctica - the "official" efforts to recover meteorites were reduced almost to zero. Unintelligibly that happened, when parallely planetology boomed and planetary spaceflight had a renaissance. That is research policy - the hunters and dealers have no influence on that and can't be blamed for that. They made an immense advance performance, now it's highest time, that the other side has to do its homework. Well and some of the scientists react on that situation very irrationally. See all those new restrictive meteorite laws. Attempts, which lead to the opposite of that, what was originally intended. And relatively new is, that some of the meteoricists have now the attitude, that to pay for their objects of research would be an obscenity. A totally singular attitude in the whole world of science and universities. You can ask any scientist from any other science branch - there is not a single one among them, who could understand that. Especially not, as the sums necessary are relatively marginal compared to the funds spend in neighbouring disciplines. And especially not, if one shows them, that all in all the other way, to generate those research objects, cost a multiple or in some cases failed. Look, only for understanding. We're making here fun about Bevan. Australia. They wanted to protect their meteorites. Well, they protected them so strongly, that no meteorites at all were found anymore, compared to the hundred years before. (Hehe, Reminds me to an antivirus-program I once installed, which was advertised, to be the best in the world. And it worked perfect. The firewalls were so good, that the internet access didn't work anymore. Of course so I wouldn't catch any virus, the disadvantage was, that I couldn't work anymore. Well, unfortunately I'm no Australian meteoricist, cause then, I would comfortably sitting for years staring on the screen, where nothing is going on, wouldn't have to work, and would be paid for that...) 2-3 expedition were carried out, they were so expensive, that one could have simply bought more interesting material or hundred times more meteorites as resulted from these expeditions. Or a multiple of fully and perfectly documented Australian meteorites, if one only would have allowed the private professional hunters search there. Still not our cup of tea - because I said, science costs. It's o.k. But now they have the laws, that nobody is willing anymore to find a meteorite for them and on the other hand, they either don't have the funds or for whatever reason, they do no own expeditions. For me and you and for many scientists, this would be a fully inacceptable situation. Solutions exist so many. Either they care for getting funds, to make own expeditions. Or they liberalize the laws of ownership, cultural blablabla, And then meteorites will be found again like all the decades before, most probably more, as in any other desert country too. Or simplest and cheapest. If I would be a Bevan, I simply would hire a Sadilenko, an Afanasjev or a Clary or a Haberer (to distribute the names over the globe) and then it would take less than 2 years until Australia would have its first Martian or second lunaite and hundredweights of new OCs. I bed a chest of champagne. Yah, sinecure, benefice, ego ...sorry, completely out of interest, meteorite hunters and dealers are interested in results! Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jason Utas [mailto:meteorite...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 08:43 An: Martin Altmann; Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Pa
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Hello Jeff, >This statement, appearing in some of the recent emails, is wrong. Really? I was speaking about "different meteorites". M.Lindstrom & R.Score came to the the result, "that the average number of Antarctic meteorites per pairing group is 5." M.Lindstrom, R.Score: Populations, Paring and Rare Meteorites in the U.S. Antarctic Meteorite Collection http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/ppr.cfm >And where in the world did this >figure of billions of dollars being spent by the US to collect its >20,000 meteorites come from? Not the U.S. - USA, Japan, China, Europe together. Antarctic is an expensive place to work and to live. You need special equipment, you have to transport everything there, you have to maintain the infrastructure, and like with any other program, you have the running costs for the personnel (salaries, social insurances, working place costs). The figures are scattered over the web. There you can read, only to give some examples, that one standard ANSMET team causes 800,000$ primary costs without secondary costs for 6 weeks on the ice - and that the whole Antarctic summer semester over would be hunted. Somewhere you will find, that the supply and the transport of fuels to maintain the McMurdo Station costed 70 millions $ in one year. And so on. Personnel costs too, remember EUROMET, who had basic costs for personnel without any expedition yet of 20 millions $ per year (they went also to Antarctica). Labs, tertiary costs - it will be all difficult to amount. (Would be interesting, if someone would do this once). Well and then think, that not only the U.S. are hunting there, but for a similar long time NIPR, then the few EUROMET trips, as well as China. Well and that for 33 years... will easily sum up to a total of far more than a billion. Personnel, equipment, insurances, pension plan, fuels, transportation, administration, These costs the public hasn't to pay, if they are buying NWAs. The Bulletins you know. Seen the tkws and the numbers from almost all rarest, rare and semi-rare types - it was meanwhile more found in NWA than in Antarctica. An unclassified averagely weathered kg NWA-OC delivered to your doorstep costs you around 30$. What does it cost to recover 1kg of an averagely weathered OC in Antarctica? How long does it take and what did it cost to find 19 different lunaites in Antarctica for USA, Japan, Europe and China together? 33 years. How long takes the same task in the private desert sector? 5 years. What does cost 1 1/4 kg of an classified R-Chondrite from NWA? 12,000$? In 33 years of Antarctic expeditions in total R-chondrites were found: 1 1/4kg. A scientist is accepted to take part in an ANSMET-hunt. He steps out of the door in sunny Arizona - will 12,000$ be enough to reach his final destination? Jeff, don't get me wrong please. It is not my intention to play the cold desert hunts off against the hot desert hunts. The Antarctic meteorite programs are wonderful, great, absolutely necessary and the expenses more than justified. But in my opinion it would also extremely stupid, if science would abstain from the NWA and Oman finds, and wouldn't work additionally on them. Because they are meanwhile even more manifold than the Antarctic finds, outweigh them by mass, and cost the public compared to the Antarctic finds virtually almost nothing at all. To set them aside would IMHO also not directly justifiable to the public, because, sorry to say that, but sometimes it is forgotten, ANSMET, NIPR, PRIC, ect. are paid with public tax-money. I'd say, Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jeff Grossman Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2010 13:46 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions > Make your homework. How many different meteorites do we have from > Antarctica after a third of a century hunting and spending billions of > USD? 7000. This statement, appearing in some of the recent emails, is wrong. There are over 16,000 classified meteorites from the ANSMET expeditions, plus a few thousand unclassified. Counting the Japanese, Chinese,European, Korean, and minor collections, There ~27,000 classified Antarctic meteorites, and probably close to 20,000 not yet classified (mostly in the Japanese and Chinese collections). And where in the world did this figure of billions of dollars being spent by the US to collect its 20,000 meteorites come from? Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites. They probably occur as subjects of scientific publications at >10x the frequency as NWA meteorites (I posted statistics on this some years ago, but can't locate it at the moment). This is because the main mass
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Hi Jeff and List, I agree with most of what you stated in your last post although I believe there is a real bias among a very few scientists, and certainly a few museums. Access to planetary material , Angrites and other rare material from NWA is supposed to be a simple matter of contacting the repository. There has been many times, my brother and I have provided additional material beyond type specimen requirements in order to satisfy science. My brother has gone as far as allowing having a sizable core taken from a large Angrite individual at a great lose in commercial value. I donated more than twice the requirement for NWA 5000 and have given scientists access to the main mass. We do this because we recognize that science is the most important aspect in qualifying meteorites. Without it, they are fairly worthless. There are other collectors and dealers who have done the same when asked. For the most part, collectors and dealers would love to have their hot desert finds studied. Then there are a few who are stingy in regards to parting with samples. I totally disagree with the following statement: These are the reasons that NWAs are relatively understudied and, I would argue, less valuable to science in general. I believe the hot desert finds are every bit as important to science as the the Antarctic finds. Acceptance and access of hot desert finds has improved dramatically the last ten years. There are several surprises yet to come, from both Antarctic and NWA. To value one over the other is demonstrating a bias in my opinion. Best Regards, Adam __ 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] Pairing discussion/questions
This is not about enthusiasm or generations of scientists. This is about specimen availability and curation. With extremely rare classes, like lunar meteorites, scientists do try to obtain every specimen they possibly can, and there has been a lot of work done on NWA meteorites. However, with virtually all other types of meteorites, this is not the case. For these, Antarctic meteorites receive much more attention because the samples are well-curated and easily available. As far as your and Ted's assertion that there is "bias..." You imply that workers are choosing one specimen over another simply because of where it comes from. I don't know of any scientist who would do that. People tend to work on the material to which they have access, and avoid making extra effort to purchase or search for other material unless that have to. The simple fact is that access to NWA samples is relatively poor. Many museums don't have large collections of NWAs (e.g., in the United States, the SI, AMNH, FMNH), the reasons for which are irrelevant to this discussion. Types specimens tend to be small even in institutions that have them. I am not alone, I am sure, in reporting that I have had serious difficulty getting research material for many hot-desert meteorites (including those from Oman and NWA), but nearly all my requests for Antarctic meteorites have been fulfilled. These are the reasons that NWAs are relatively understudied and, I would argue, less valuable to science in general. jeff On 2010-01-19 12:00 PM, Adam Hupe wrote: Thank you, Ted for pointing out that a meteorite doesn't care where it lands. I noticed that this bias concerning Antarctic versus NWA finds is disappearing with the current generation of scientists. Years ago at the LPSC in Houston, about one and ten papers concerning planetary meteorites mentioned NWA. The last time I went to this conference, over half the papers that dealt with planetary meteorites included NWA specimens. When talking to the up and coming planetary scientists, I observed that they were equally enthusiastic about specimens and have not developed any bias whatsoever. I have seen both Antarctic and NWA specimens and I am equally impressed with both. I saw a freezer and a nitrogen filled case full of Antarctic specimens at the Antarctic Laboratory when I visited it a couple of years ago. I failed to see a difference other than the the Antarctic pieces were treated much better in the handling and preservation department. I observed heavy weathering on most of the pieces but they were preserved in the same manner as the few fresh pieces I saw. They just weathered differently then the NWA material with a lot of evaporates and salt clinging to them. NWA material, on the other hand, develops caliche deposits and really weathered examples tend to crack or fragment. In my opinion, both locations are equally capable of producing fresh and desirable specimens. Best Regards, Adam - Original Message From: Ted Bunch To: Jeff Grossman; Meteorite-list Sent: Tue, January 19, 2010 7:54:23 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions Jeff - your statement from below " Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites" is misleading and somewhat biased. Meteorites of the various classes are nearly equally represented in the Antarctic and Desert collections. Some classes are better represented from the desert collections, for examples, brachinites, angrites, Martians and the Antarctic collections have more acapulcoites, aubrites, and some carbonaceous. But, the number of samples doesn't really matter. The number of scientific publications "> 10X" means little in terms of scientific significance. The use of Antarctic specimens is largely biased if you consider the following: 1) NSF funded Antarctic samples are more easily obtained for research compared with trying to obtain samples from collectors, dealers and repository collections and they are usually prepared for instant study (thin sections, cleaned, diced, boxed, etc.). 2) NSF has put pressure on various institutions to either publish more on the 1000s of Antarctic meteorites, obtained with NSF funding, or lose support for future Expeditions. 3) There is considerable bias among some researchers to not use Desert samples for political reasons and the lack of exact find locations (Nomads do not use GPS instruments, not that this means much). Some museums are extremely biased against "dirty desert meteorites" and will not let them in the door, thus depriving researchers for easy access to samples for study - a very prominent Federally funded museum comes to mind. 4) The Japanese publish almost exclusively on their Antarctic meteorites, not Desert specimens. 5) More and more research papers d
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Thank you, Ted for pointing out that a meteorite doesn't care where it lands. I noticed that this bias concerning Antarctic versus NWA finds is disappearing with the current generation of scientists. Years ago at the LPSC in Houston, about one and ten papers concerning planetary meteorites mentioned NWA. The last time I went to this conference, over half the papers that dealt with planetary meteorites included NWA specimens. When talking to the up and coming planetary scientists, I observed that they were equally enthusiastic about specimens and have not developed any bias whatsoever. I have seen both Antarctic and NWA specimens and I am equally impressed with both. I saw a freezer and a nitrogen filled case full of Antarctic specimens at the Antarctic Laboratory when I visited it a couple of years ago. I failed to see a difference other than the the Antarctic pieces were treated much better in the handling and preservation department. I observed heavy weathering on most of the pieces but they were preserved in the same manner as the few fresh pieces I saw. They just weathered differently then the NWA material with a lot of evaporates and salt clinging to them. NWA material, on the other hand, develops caliche deposits and really weathered examples tend to crack or fragment. In my opinion, both locations are equally capable of producing fresh and desirable specimens. Best Regards, Adam - Original Message From: Ted Bunch To: Jeff Grossman ; Meteorite-list Sent: Tue, January 19, 2010 7:54:23 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions Jeff - your statement from below " Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites" is misleading and somewhat biased. Meteorites of the various classes are nearly equally represented in the Antarctic and Desert collections. Some classes are better represented from the desert collections, for examples, brachinites, angrites, Martians and the Antarctic collections have more acapulcoites, aubrites, and some carbonaceous. But, the number of samples doesn't really matter. The number of scientific publications "> 10X" means little in terms of scientific significance. The use of Antarctic specimens is largely biased if you consider the following: 1) NSF funded Antarctic samples are more easily obtained for research compared with trying to obtain samples from collectors, dealers and repository collections and they are usually prepared for instant study (thin sections, cleaned, diced, boxed, etc.). 2) NSF has put pressure on various institutions to either publish more on the 1000s of Antarctic meteorites, obtained with NSF funding, or lose support for future Expeditions. 3) There is considerable bias among some researchers to not use Desert samples for political reasons and the lack of exact find locations (Nomads do not use GPS instruments, not that this means much). Some museums are extremely biased against "dirty desert meteorites" and will not let them in the door, thus depriving researchers for easy access to samples for study - a very prominent Federally funded museum comes to mind. 4) The Japanese publish almost exclusively on their Antarctic meteorites, not Desert specimens. 5) More and more research papers deal with both Desert and Antarctic samples and that tact is becoming more prevalent with time as bias diminishes and the reality of "desert significance" enters the mind set. I don't know how you factor that into the "numbers game". 6) A shot at "more valuable scientifically" - if not for the valuable lunar samples collected from the deserts, we would know much less about the Moon - see the Korotev web site on Lunars. And, and we know a Hell of a lot more about Mars from Desert Martians - See Irving web site on Martians. Bottom line - geography has little to do with a meteorite's significance. As a colleague of mine said "A meteorite doesn't care where it lands". Regards, Ted On 1/19/10 5:46 AM, "Jeff Grossman" wrote: >> Make your homework. How many different meteorites do we have from >> Antarctica after a third of a century hunting and spending billions of >> USD? 7000. > This statement, appearing in some of the recent emails, is wrong. There > are over 16,000 classified meteorites from the ANSMET expeditions, plus > a few thousand unclassified. Counting the Japanese, Chinese,European, > Korean, and minor collections, There ~27,000 classified Antarctic > meteorites, and probably close to 20,000 not yet classified (mostly in > the Japanese and Chinese collections). And where in the world did this > figure of billions of dollars being spent by the US to collect its > 20,000 meteorites come from? > > Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteori
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
I can now report with some authority that the total cost of 30+ years of collecting by ANSMET has been in the range of $20 million. Considering the record of scientific achievements that has been built on this collection of 20,000 specimens, I would have to say it has been a bargain. Jeff Make your homework. How many different meteorites do we have from Antarctica after a third of a century hunting and spending billions of USD? 7000. This statement, appearing in some of the recent emails, is wrong. There are over 16,000 classified meteorites from the ANSMET expeditions, plus a few thousand unclassified. Counting the Japanese, Chinese,European, Korean, and minor collections, There ~27,000 classified Antarctic meteorites, and probably close to 20,000 not yet classified (mostly in the Japanese and Chinese collections). And where in the world did this figure of billions of dollars being spent by the US to collect its 20,000 meteorites come from? Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites. They probably occur as subjects of scientific publications at >10x the frequency as NWA meteorites (I posted statistics on this some years ago, but can't locate it at the moment). This is because the main masses are well curated. Jeff Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ 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] Pairing discussion/questions
Jeff - your statement from below " Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites" is misleading and somewhat biased. Meteorites of the various classes are nearly equally represented in the Antarctic and Desert collections. Some classes are better represented from the desert collections, for examples, brachinites, angrites, Martians and the Antarctic collections have more acapulcoites, aubrites, and some carbonaceous. But, the number of samples doesn't really matter. The number of scientific publications "> 10X" means little in terms of scientific significance. The use of Antarctic specimens is largely biased if you consider the following: 1) NSF funded Antarctic samples are more easily obtained for research compared with trying to obtain samples from collectors, dealers and repository collections and they are usually prepared for instant study (thin sections, cleaned, diced, boxed, etc.). 2) NSF has put pressure on various institutions to either publish more on the 1000s of Antarctic meteorites, obtained with NSF funding, or lose support for future Expeditions. 3) There is considerable bias among some researchers to not use Desert samples for political reasons and the lack of exact find locations (Nomads do not use GPS instruments, not that this means much). Some museums are extremely biased against "dirty desert meteorites" and will not let them in the door, thus depriving researchers for easy access to samples for study - a very prominent Federally funded museum comes to mind. 4) The Japanese publish almost exclusively on their Antarctic meteorites, not Desert specimens. 5) More and more research papers deal with both Desert and Antarctic samples and that tact is becoming more prevalent with time as bias diminishes and the reality of "desert significance" enters the mind set. I don't know how you factor that into the "numbers game". 6) A shot at "more valuable scientifically" - if not for the valuable lunar samples collected from the deserts, we would know much less about the Moon - see the Korotev web site on Lunars. And, and we know a Hell of a lot more about Mars from Desert Martians - See Irving web site on Martians. Bottom line - geography has little to do with a meteorite's significance. As a colleague of mine said "A meteorite doesn't care where it lands". Regards, Ted On 1/19/10 5:46 AM, "Jeff Grossman" wrote: >> Make your homework. How many different meteorites do we have from >> Antarctica after a third of a century hunting and spending billions of >> USD? 7000. > This statement, appearing in some of the recent emails, is wrong. There > are over 16,000 classified meteorites from the ANSMET expeditions, plus > a few thousand unclassified. Counting the Japanese, Chinese,European, > Korean, and minor collections, There ~27,000 classified Antarctic > meteorites, and probably close to 20,000 not yet classified (mostly in > the Japanese and Chinese collections). And where in the world did this > figure of billions of dollars being spent by the US to collect its > 20,000 meteorites come from? > > Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be > vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites. They probably > occur as subjects of scientific publications at >10x the frequency as > NWA meteorites (I posted statistics on this some years ago, but can't > locate it at the moment). This is because the main masses are well curated. > > Jeff __ 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] Pairing discussion/questions
Make your homework. How many different meteorites do we have from Antarctica after a third of a century hunting and spending billions of USD? 7000. This statement, appearing in some of the recent emails, is wrong. There are over 16,000 classified meteorites from the ANSMET expeditions, plus a few thousand unclassified. Counting the Japanese, Chinese,European, Korean, and minor collections, There ~27,000 classified Antarctic meteorites, and probably close to 20,000 not yet classified (mostly in the Japanese and Chinese collections). And where in the world did this figure of billions of dollars being spent by the US to collect its 20,000 meteorites come from? Also, don't overlook the fact that Antarctic meteorite have proven to be vastly more valuable scientifically than NWA meteorites. They probably occur as subjects of scientific publications at >10x the frequency as NWA meteorites (I posted statistics on this some years ago, but can't locate it at the moment). This is because the main masses are well curated. Jeff -- Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ 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] Pairing discussion/questions
e end, we would have more information. We've destroyed a large part of it, and we can't get it back. Yep, saying it again. Go figure. > How many publications we would have without them? > How many billions more would we have had to spend to get the same material? > What for meteorites at all would be there. Probably just as many. It's not like we would have run out of things to study in known meteorites, and over time, we would have more information to add to what we have today. It would simply take longer. You don't seem to understand that there aren't an unlimited number of meteorites in the world, and that when data is lost, it's lost for good. When you understand that, you will be able to comprehend what I'm saying. Until then, there's really nothing I can say to you regarding this issue that will make any sense. > What would we do know without them about the solar system, about planetary > bodies and their formation. About the origin of the sun, the age and the > composition of the Earth. About the formation of planets around other stars. > About the possibility of life in space > and finally about ourselves? Maybe a little bit less, but in time we would *undoubtedly* come to know more, because we wold ultimately have more meteorites to work with and better distribution information, which might tell us other things. If we had taken longer to recover the meteorites, yes, we would have fewer of them now, but...they're not going anywhere. Whether I go to a lakebed to hunt tomorrow or ten years from now, that meteorite will still be there. But if I go tomorrow and pick it up without taking coordinates, in ten years, I won't know where to go to find more, and no one will know where it was found. That's what I'm saying. And we could have done better as a community to keep that loss of information from happening many thousands of times over. And you, and I, and everyone else, didn't. That's all I'm saying. I'm not pointing my finger at anyone - or at least if I am, it's pointed at me, too. And I know my reasoning is pretty sound, and that you're entire tirade was misdirect, misinformed, and generally misleading. So...I'm content with leaving things here. > Think well, Jason, > and then be happy and grateful, > that there are still persons willing to do that job. I'd ask the same of you in the future. And perhaps you, as a dealer, will pay those hard workers the money they deserve for the specimens they bring you, since you're apparently underpaying them at the moment. Jason > > > > > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com > [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason > Utas > Gesendet: Montag, 18. Januar 2010 22:57 > An: Greg Catterton; Meteorite-list > Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions > > Hello Greg, All, > > This brings up a valid point - when total known weights have increased > since initial reporting, I believe that dealers should be obligated to > change their numbers. Otherwise they are *lying* about what they're > selling. The total known weight of Taza is not 75 kilograms, the > total known weight of Franconia is not 100 kilograms, and we all know > there's more of a few NWA's like 3118 and 2086 than any one person > could shake a stick at. The only time anyone actually seems to keep > any sort of track of a new meteorite's whereabouts *to any degree* is > when it's a planetary meteorite - otherwise pairings tend to be > ignored. > But this makes sense - think about it from a dealer's perspective. > Would you want to list the tkw of a stone you're selling as "unknown, >> than 20 kilograms," or would you prefer it to be the "official" ~700 > grams. > It makes sense for the sellers to use the outdated information, and > they've been able to get away with it until now, not that things are > going to change any time soon. > > This situation is wholly unscientific, and while we've been calling it > a meteorite "rush" for a while, in the end, we dealers and collectors > are the ones who made it financially viable for the locals to start > implementing this kind of a recovery process in which almost all find > data is lost (though there have been plenty of other instances of > unscientific behavior in the field - e.g. the Nova stones - also due > to a dealer looking to maximize profits - and the "Sahara XXxxx" > stones, for which coordinates have still yet to be released - and I'm > thinking they likely never will be). Then, of course, you have the > issue with finders misreporting coordinates for rare finds in Oman, > blatantl
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
whole planet and from all times (without of course the horribly expensive Antarctic finds) - you still will have left over a lot of that sum. Make a Bessey deal like in former times. 25$/kg for unclassified W3 OCs. But then you would have to give Dean a hint, wherefrom Dean should take 800 tons of OCs, if the Catalogue lists only 700 tons of meteorites in history and on Earth and less than 40 tons are stones and the rest irons. And - EUROMET was going in Sahara, yippieh, and they came back with absolutely empty hands. Wrong hunting area? I doubt. It was the Kem-Kem-region - exactly that region, where a little later the first hundredweights of meteorites were found by locals, marking the beginning of NWA. And you dare to complain about missing coordinates and you are maundering about shabby tricks of greedy hunters and dealers. Welcome, spend some GPS-devices. I suggest you pay the first 1000 units. Gosh, you have really no idea. Please, 3/4 or more of all those persons, you'd call a dealer are doing it for fun and never sat a foot into Sahara, they buy their stones on shows or from photos. Wherefrom the heck shall they know, how much paired material is around? Especially if it takes often up to 2 years until a number is published in the Bulletin? Man, take a look to the numbers, sometimes it takes many years, until an additional stone surfaces. Don't you even know famous NWA 011 - there are now pairings close to the 5000er numbers. Yeears inbetween. Or NWA 722 up to Anoual and even later!! And do me a favour and show me the multimillionaires, who made their fortune with meteorites, no matter if they used shady tricks or not to betray you. I know only one, unfortunately a fictitious one: William Barriere from the Anti-dealer propaganda comic strips from Canada. Don't take my harshness too personally, had some bad days, But I think I can say, we all are s sick and tired from that hunter- and dealer-bashing. Years and years and years. Endlessly. Man, they make the dirty work, that work, nobody else is willing to do or able to do, neither the public willing nor able to pay. Blood, sweat and tears. And they are horribly underpaid, seen the performance they deliver day by day and the prices having been paid the 200 years before the NWA-rush. The stats and the history prooves that all more than clearly. Get scientific, Jason. They do it for science, they do it for the collectors, they do it for you and they do it for their enthusiasm, because they are crazy minds. They delivered the bulk of all meteorites on Earth, the very recent years in volumes and in a diversity, nobody could have imagined even only 10 years before, and they drove the prices underground seen the last 200 years, making meteorites available to each and every scientist and collector, and to everybody of good will, saving the public and science millions, millions and millions of funds, which are urgently needed elsewhere in meteoritic research. And therefore we all are more than fed up with this perseverative reproaches, which really ignorant people like so much to heap on the dealers, the hunters, the collectors. When will they do their homework, when will they get mature... We're writing the year 2010. Yaha, Ward, Nininger, Zeitschel... yes, they were disregarded as wretches too. Haven't we learned since? Jason, check it out, where would we be today without the private sector, which you blame, to act so unscientifically. What for and how many meteorites would we have in the institutes and museums at all without them? How many publications we would have without them? How many billions more would we have had to spend to get the same material? What for meteorites at all would be there. What would we do know without them about the solar system, about planetary bodies and their formation. About the origin of the sun, the age and the composition of the Earth. About the formation of planets around other stars. About the possibility of life in space and finally about ourselves? Think well, Jason, and then be happy and grateful, that there are still persons willing to do that job. Amen. Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Montag, 18. Januar 2010 22:57 An: Greg Catterton; Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions Hello Greg, All, This brings up a valid point - when total known weights have increased since initial reporting, I believe that dealers should be obligated to change their numbers. Otherwise they are *lying* about what they're selling. The total known weight of Taza is not 75 kilograms, the total known weight of Franconia is not 100 kilograms, and we all know there's more of a few NWA's like 3118 and 2086 than any one person could shake a stick at. The only time anyone actually seems to keep any
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Hello Greg, All, This brings up a valid point - when total known weights have increased since initial reporting, I believe that dealers should be obligated to change their numbers. Otherwise they are *lying* about what they're selling. The total known weight of Taza is not 75 kilograms, the total known weight of Franconia is not 100 kilograms, and we all know there's more of a few NWA's like 3118 and 2086 than any one person could shake a stick at. The only time anyone actually seems to keep any sort of track of a new meteorite's whereabouts *to any degree* is when it's a planetary meteorite - otherwise pairings tend to be ignored. But this makes sense - think about it from a dealer's perspective. Would you want to list the tkw of a stone you're selling as "unknown, > than 20 kilograms," or would you prefer it to be the "official" ~700 grams. It makes sense for the sellers to use the outdated information, and they've been able to get away with it until now, not that things are going to change any time soon. This situation is wholly unscientific, and while we've been calling it a meteorite "rush" for a while, in the end, we dealers and collectors are the ones who made it financially viable for the locals to start implementing this kind of a recovery process in which almost all find data is lost (though there have been plenty of other instances of unscientific behavior in the field - e.g. the Nova stones - also due to a dealer looking to maximize profits - and the "Sahara XXxxx" stones, for which coordinates have still yet to be released - and I'm thinking they likely never will be). Then, of course, you have the issue with finders misreporting coordinates for rare finds in Oman, blatantly lying to the scientific community about where they have found their stones. It's one thing to say that you won't give the coordinates up; it's another entirely to lie. Yes, I understand why they're doing it, but...damn. If you lie, you should lose credibility -- and no one here seems to care. I suppose the bottom line is that we're dealing with an unregulated system in which no one has any reason to publish any such data. There's just no reason to, soyeah. Ideally, every stone would be GPS'ed, photographed in-situ, and the truth would be told, but that would take for more time and money than most people apparently want to put into it. And people would get screwed by competitors stealing their hard-earned data, robbing their strewn-fields. Hell, the Moroccans now have the funds to buy their own GPS' anyways. I'd say there's a reason they likely don't buy them and use them; they probably want to keep their find locations a secret as well. And then everyone gets pissed when an American hunter keeps a fall location a secret because he wants to document every piece well. Go figure. Jason On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Greg Catterton wrote: > As a seller, what is expected of me or anyone else offering material like > this? > > Should I make it very clear that while I am selling a 1.25g stone paired with > NWA 4857 that there is a considerable amount more then the TKW listed? > Would saying its paired with another of those stones be misleading even > though they are all paired together? > > By not offering more precise info about possible TKW and pairing if I am > aware of it, but dont, is that considered bad to not disclose full > information available? > > I have seen some selling that list a rather nice amount of information while > others seem to want to give the appearance that the low TKW is all of that > material there is, when in fact there could be as much as 1000x more, just > with another number. > > Lots of questions, I know... Just trying to get a better understanding of > this and expectations from pairing. > > Greg > > > --- On Mon, 1/18/10, Greg Stanley wrote: > >> From: Greg Stanley >> Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions >> To: zelimir.gabel...@uha.fr, star_wars_collec...@yahoo.com, >> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com >> Date: Monday, January 18, 2010, 1:20 PM >> >> Zelimir: >> >> So it's possible all the classifications (shown below) are >> from the same fall? And perhaps from the same large mass? >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> > NWA 4857 (Algeria, Shergottite enr maf), 0.928 g in >> collection; tkw:1...@24 g: >> > >> > Paired with NWA 2975 (70.1 g), NWA 2986 >> > (170 g), NWA 2987 (82 g), NWA 4766 (225 g), NWA >> > 4783 (120 g), NWA 4864 (94 g), NWA 4878 (130 g), >> > NWA 4880 (81.6 g), NWA 4930 (117.5 g), NWA 5140 >> > (7.5 g), NWA 5214 (50.7 g), NWA 5219 (60 g), &g
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Don't expect every meteorite found in this strewnfield to get its own number, that's just is not going to happen NWA 2975/ /2986 /2987 /4766 /4783 /4857 /4864 /4878 /4880 /4930 /5140 /5214 /5219 /5113 /5366/ etc,etc,etc,etc,etc Did I leave any out:) Tim Heitz - Original Message - From: "Zelimir Gabelica" To: "Greg Catterton" ; Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions Hi Greg, This might be a typical question for Jeff Grossman. I am also continuously puzzled by the abundance of paired meteorites (thus those that are officially recognized as such). Let's suppose that once one (or a few) meteorite(s) are selected from an important lot (as found) and sold to someone, this someone (scientist, collector) would envisage its classification. And the same will possibly happen with the other meteorites from the same lot. As a result, there will be as many different NWA numbers, as independent classifications (of the - probably- same meteorite). As most of these classifications probably won't be concerted, there will not be pairings reported and we will end up with as many different meteorites, most probably of the same type, that will never be suspected being paired. If a pairing is suspected, I believe this results from "concerted" analyses (of either meteorites stemming from the same lot and analyzed by different groups, or of the same meteorites provided by different finders (buyers) brought for analysis to the same group). This even complicates further if there are more than one such "lot" found (meteorite shower spread throughout a large strewnfield). In case of such "concerted" analyzes, I guess that the labs will still give a different NWA number to each meteorite (or group of meteorites from the same lot) analyzed, because one is never sure that 2 meteorites supposed to come from the same lot are at 100% the same. If pairing is reported, then most of the time (not always) it is mentioned in the Met. Bulls. But because all analyzes were done independently, each analyzed meteorite (or group of meteorites from the same verified lot) will receive its own NWA number. Here I realize that, at that stage, it is very difficult to decide to only retain as official the first NWA number attributed chronologically and to cancel all the next NWA numbers. I for one am just happy when pairings are reported. This is often the case for "important" types such as the planetaries. But for the "common" H6's or L5's, I believe this is very seldom done. So far, regarding my collection catalogue, here is what I mention (for my NWA 4857 sample taken as an example), just to have an idea of the total mass of that meteorite evaluated so far. NWA 4857 (Algeria, Shergottite enr maf), 0.928 g in collection; tkw:1...@24 g: Paired with NWA 2975 (70.1 g), NWA 2986 (170 g), NWA 2987 (82 g), NWA 4766 (225 g), NWA 4783 (120 g), NWA 4864 (94 g), NWA 4878 (130 g), NWA 4880 (81.6 g), NWA 4930 (117.5 g), NWA 5140 (7.5 g), NWA 5214 (50.7 g), NWA 5219 (60 g), NWA5313 (5.3 g) and NWA 5366 (39.6 g). Cumulated tkw: 1273.3 g (as per Jan. 2010) I know that this neither sheds more light to the problem, nor answers your concerns. Hopefully someone can add more to the issue. My best, Zelimir At 17:09 18/01/2010, Greg Catterton wrote: I have often wondered and after some discussion with others I wanted to get the community feeling on the issue of pairings. If a meteorite say NWA 1877 for example is out there and more is recovered and verified to be the same material from the same strewnfield, should the new material share the NWA number and the TKW be updated? I have noticed many pairings with NWA 1877 and many other meteorites. Same material with different numbers and TKWs listed. Would it not be in the best interest to have all the paired samples share on number? This would surely cut the amount of NWA material by 1000 or more. Why is this not done? What is the process for pairing material to share the NWA number? Is it up to the dealer or the person who did testing? What affect would it have on value if something with a listed TKW of 200g suddenly was paired with the 3 other numbers assigned to the same material and the TKW was pushed to 1kg or more? Surely it would decrease as supply grew. Is this a concern for some? I am trying to better understand the politics/red tape that goes with this area. Thanks, hope everyone is doing well. Greg C. __ 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 Prof. Zelimir Gabelica Université de Haute Alsace ENSCMu, Lab. GSEC,
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
My data are taken from the major Dr Irving's updates of the Martian Meteorites Page and List, kindly provided in a recent post by Norbert Classen (IMCA): http://www.imca.cc/mars/martian-meteorites.htm See more specifically here: http://www.imca.cc/mars/martian-meteorites-list.htm I have no reason to doubt about these data so my answer would be "yes". PS: I very much like the new classification scheme of shergottites suggested by Irving. Question: would this get a chance to become official ? (unless it still is ?) Zelimir At 19:20 18/01/2010, Greg Stanley wrote: Zelimir: So it's possible all the classifications (shown below) are from the same fall? And perhaps from the same large mass? Thanks, > NWA 4857 (Algeria, Shergottite enr maf), 0.928 g in collection; tkw:1...@24 g: > > Paired with NWA 2975 (70.1 g), NWA 2986 > (170 g), NWA 2987 (82 g), NWA 4766 (225 g), NWA > 4783 (120 g), NWA 4864 (94 g), NWA 4878 (130 g), > NWA 4880 (81.6 g), NWA 4930 (117.5 g), NWA 5140 > (7.5 g), NWA 5214 (50.7 g), NWA 5219 (60 g), > NWA5313 (5.3 g) and NWA 5366 (39.6 g). > Cumulated tkw: 1273.3 g (as per Jan. 2010) > Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:46:15 +0100 > To: star_wars_collec...@yahoo.com; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > From: zelimir.gabel...@uha.fr > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions > > Hi Greg, > > This might be a typical question for Jeff Grossman. > > I am also continuously puzzled by the abundance > of paired meteorites (thus those that are officially recognized as such). > > Let's suppose that once one (or a few) > meteorite(s) are selected from an important lot > (as found) and sold to someone, this someone > (scientist, collector) would envisage its classification. > And the same will possibly happen with the other meteorites from the same lot. > As a result, there will be as many different NWA > numbers, as independent classifications (of the - probably- same meteorite). > As most of these classifications probably won't > be concerted, there will not be pairings reported > and we will end up with as many different > meteorites, most probably of the same type, that > will never be suspected being paired. > > If a pairing is suspected, I believe this results > from "concerted" analyses (of either meteorites > stemming from the same lot and analyzed by > different groups, or of the same meteorites > provided by different finders (buyers) > brought for analysis to the same group). > > This even complicates further if there are more > than one such "lot" found (meteorite shower > spread throughout a large strewnfield). > > In case of such "concerted" analyzes, I guess > that the labs will still give a different NWA > number to each meteorite (or group of meteorites > from the same lot) analyzed, because one is never > sure that 2 meteorites supposed to come from the > same lot are at 100% the same. > If pairing is reported, then most of the time > (not always) it is mentioned in the Met. Bulls. > But because all analyzes were done independently, > each analyzed meteorite (or group of meteorites > from the same verified lot) will receive its own NWA number. > > Here I realize that, at that stage, it is very > difficult to decide to only retain as official > the first NWA number attributed chronologically > and to cancel all the next NWA numbers. > > I for one am just happy when pairings are > reported. This is often the case for "important" > types such as the planetaries. > But for the "common" H6's or L5's, I believe this is very seldom done. > > So far, regarding my collection catalogue, here > is what I mention (for my NWA 4857 sample taken > as an example), just to have an idea of the total > mass of that meteorite evaluated so far. > > NWA 4857 (Algeria, Shergottite enr maf), 0.928 g in collection; tkw:1...@24 g: > > Paired with NWA 2975 (70.1 g), NWA 2986 > (170 g), NWA 2987 (82 g), NWA 4766 (225 g), NWA > 4783 (120 g), NWA 4864 (94 g), NWA 4878 (130 g), > NWA 4880 (81.6 g), NWA 4930 (117.5 g), NWA 5140 > (7.5 g), NWA 5214 (50.7 g), NWA 5219 (60 g), > NWA5313 (5.3 g) and NWA 5366 (39.6 g). > Cumulated tkw: 1273.3 g (as per Jan. 2010) > > I know that this neither sheds more light to the > problem, nor answers your concerns. > Hopefully someone can add more to the issue. > > My best, > > Zelimir > > > At 17:09 18/01/2010, Greg Catterton wrote: >>I have often wondered and after some discussion >>with others I wanted to get the community feeling on the issue of pairings. >> >>If a meteorite say NWA 1877 for example is
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Thanks Greg, great post with really good information. This is a great topic that I am sure many who read will benefit from. Pairing is an important issue in my opinion and the comments offered here can surely help anyone when dealing with unclassified and paired NWA material. Jeff is one of the top guys, if not the top guy concerning classification and offered great information. Greg has been at this for some time and is still around, so hes doing something right. Free education from people who know is a great thing. I have learned a great deal about this already from the discussion and hope others come out with just as much. Save these posts to word doc or something for future use, its good stuff. Greg C. --- On Mon, 1/18/10, Greg Hupe wrote: > From: Greg Hupe > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions > To: "Greg Catterton" > Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > Date: Monday, January 18, 2010, 1:40 PM > Hello Greg C. and All, > > The self pairing issue comes up at least once a year. I > agree that a single number would be best for all, but there > are too many problems with that model. In the original > question Greg C. asked with NWA 1877 as an example, as one > of the original co-owners of the NWA 1877 material, I > believe in keeping the TKW's and authenticity of the > material as accurate as possible. The NomCom has laid out > specific rules which should be followed as Jeff Grossman > very clearly pointed out. About a year after NWA 1877 was > given the official number, on one of my near-monthly trips > to Morocco at the time I bought more of the material that > surfaced. Instead of selling it as "NWA 1877", I followed > the rules and supplied a 20-gram type sample to scientists > and paid the lab and scientists their fees to have it > officially classified. I received a new number, "NWA 5603". > In my eBay description, I mention the pairing to NWA 1877. > > An example to illustrate it is not a good idea to take the > word of someone selling "self-paired" material, lets take > the case of the Martian NWA 2975. As Jim Strope pointed out, > "NWA 2975" was a single stone, yet other small complete > individuals are being sold as NWA 2975. Another case where > many of us did the right thing and supplied the full type > sample and received a pairing NWA number. There was a great > case why we should not cheap out with hiring a competent lab > and providing the required full type sample. In this > particular case, a well established meteorite dealer was > trying to sell a somewhat large Martian stone as, "...being > paired to NWA 2975..." As it turned out, that single stone > WAS NOT paired to NWA 2975 and it was through the efforts of > competent scientists and others who helped to correct that > wrong to the delight of the dealer offering that supposed > "pairing". It now has an Official meteorite Name/number and > now it is accurate and different from 2975. Bottom line, it > does not pay to cheap out with getting stones authenticated > and paired if the material actually is. > > As to the case of NWA 5480, I first got that material and > had the scientists do their work to reveal the amazing > components of this new meteorite. The people who I purchased > the material from in Morocco sent me a few more stones they > were sure were paired to it. After receiving these few > stones, it turned out one of the stones WAS NOT the same as > NWA 5480. This goes to show that self pairing not only hurts > the true nature of the material, it makes it to where > collectors become unconfident in buying from people who make > self pairing claims. The stones that were paired were added > to the TKW of NWA 5480. Sometimes it is simply an accident > that the 'other' material is thought to be the same, other > times it is not this way. Either way, it is the > responsibility of resellers to do the right thing. > > So, lets keep it real and do the responsible thing for the > sake of accuracy for both the science and to keep collectors > confident in what they are purchasing. As new meteorite > collectors/dealers enter the arena year after year, it is up > to them to do the right thing. You can not simply take the > word of someone who claims, "This material is for sure the > same as 'NWA 1877, 2975, 5480' "... and the list goes on. > > As Adam coined several years ago, "When in doubt, check it > out!" > > I wish everyone a prosperous and accurate year for > collecting, finding and selling meteorites! > > Best regards, > Greg > > > Greg Hupe > The Hupe Collection > NaturesVault (eBay) > gmh...@htn.net >
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
As a seller, what is expected of me or anyone else offering material like this? Should I make it very clear that while I am selling a 1.25g stone paired with NWA 4857 that there is a considerable amount more then the TKW listed? Would saying its paired with another of those stones be misleading even though they are all paired together? By not offering more precise info about possible TKW and pairing if I am aware of it, but dont, is that considered bad to not disclose full information available? I have seen some selling that list a rather nice amount of information while others seem to want to give the appearance that the low TKW is all of that material there is, when in fact there could be as much as 1000x more, just with another number. Lots of questions, I know... Just trying to get a better understanding of this and expectations from pairing. Greg --- On Mon, 1/18/10, Greg Stanley wrote: > From: Greg Stanley > Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions > To: zelimir.gabel...@uha.fr, star_wars_collec...@yahoo.com, > meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > Date: Monday, January 18, 2010, 1:20 PM > > Zelimir: > > So it's possible all the classifications (shown below) are > from the same fall? And perhaps from the same large mass? > > Thanks, > > > > NWA 4857 (Algeria, Shergottite enr maf), 0.928 g in > collection; tkw:1...@24 g: > > > > Paired with NWA 2975 (70.1 g), NWA 2986 > > (170 g), NWA 2987 (82 g), NWA 4766 (225 g), NWA > > 4783 (120 g), NWA 4864 (94 g), NWA 4878 (130 g), > > NWA 4880 (81.6 g), NWA 4930 (117.5 g), NWA 5140 > > (7.5 g), NWA 5214 (50.7 g), NWA 5219 (60 g), > > NWA5313 (5.3 g) and NWA 5366 (39.6 g). > > Cumulated tkw: 1273.3 g (as per Jan. 2010) > > > > > Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:46:15 +0100 > > To: star_wars_collec...@yahoo.com; > meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > From: zelimir.gabel...@uha.fr > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing > discussion/questions > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > This might be a typical question for Jeff Grossman. > > > > I am also continuously puzzled by the abundance > > of paired meteorites (thus those that are officially > recognized as such). > > > > Let's suppose that once one (or a few) > > meteorite(s) are selected from an important lot > > (as found) and sold to someone, this someone > > (scientist, collector) would envisage its > classification. > > And the same will possibly happen with the other > meteorites from the same lot. > > As a result, there will be as many different NWA > > numbers, as independent classifications (of the - > probably- same meteorite). > > As most of these classifications probably won't > > be concerted, there will not be pairings reported > > and we will end up with as many different > > meteorites, most probably of the same type, that > > will never be suspected being paired. > > > > If a pairing is suspected, I believe this results > > from "concerted" analyses (of either meteorites > > stemming from the same lot and analyzed by > > different groups, or of the same meteorites > > provided by different finders (buyers) > > brought for analysis to the same group). > > > > This even complicates further if there are more > > than one such "lot" found (meteorite shower > > spread throughout a large strewnfield). > > > > In case of such "concerted" analyzes, I guess > > that the labs will still give a different NWA > > number to each meteorite (or group of meteorites > > from the same lot) analyzed, because one is never > > sure that 2 meteorites supposed to come from the > > same lot are at 100% the same. > > If pairing is reported, then most of the time > > (not always) it is mentioned in the Met. Bulls. > > But because all analyzes were done independently, > > each analyzed meteorite (or group of meteorites > > from the same verified lot) will receive its own NWA > number. > > > > Here I realize that, at that stage, it is very > > difficult to decide to only retain as official > > the first NWA number attributed chronologically > > and to cancel all the next NWA numbers. > > > > I for one am just happy when pairings are > > reported. This is often the case for "important" > > types such as the planetaries. > > But for the "common" H6's or L5's, I believe this is > very seldom done. > > > > So far, regarding my collection catalogue, here > > is what I mention (for my NWA 4
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Hello Greg C. and All, The self pairing issue comes up at least once a year. I agree that a single number would be best for all, but there are too many problems with that model. In the original question Greg C. asked with NWA 1877 as an example, as one of the original co-owners of the NWA 1877 material, I believe in keeping the TKW's and authenticity of the material as accurate as possible. The NomCom has laid out specific rules which should be followed as Jeff Grossman very clearly pointed out. About a year after NWA 1877 was given the official number, on one of my near-monthly trips to Morocco at the time I bought more of the material that surfaced. Instead of selling it as "NWA 1877", I followed the rules and supplied a 20-gram type sample to scientists and paid the lab and scientists their fees to have it officially classified. I received a new number, "NWA 5603". In my eBay description, I mention the pairing to NWA 1877. An example to illustrate it is not a good idea to take the word of someone selling "self-paired" material, lets take the case of the Martian NWA 2975. As Jim Strope pointed out, "NWA 2975" was a single stone, yet other small complete individuals are being sold as NWA 2975. Another case where many of us did the right thing and supplied the full type sample and received a pairing NWA number. There was a great case why we should not cheap out with hiring a competent lab and providing the required full type sample. In this particular case, a well established meteorite dealer was trying to sell a somewhat large Martian stone as, "...being paired to NWA 2975..." As it turned out, that single stone WAS NOT paired to NWA 2975 and it was through the efforts of competent scientists and others who helped to correct that wrong to the delight of the dealer offering that supposed "pairing". It now has an Official meteorite Name/number and now it is accurate and different from 2975. Bottom line, it does not pay to cheap out with getting stones authenticated and paired if the material actually is. As to the case of NWA 5480, I first got that material and had the scientists do their work to reveal the amazing components of this new meteorite. The people who I purchased the material from in Morocco sent me a few more stones they were sure were paired to it. After receiving these few stones, it turned out one of the stones WAS NOT the same as NWA 5480. This goes to show that self pairing not only hurts the true nature of the material, it makes it to where collectors become unconfident in buying from people who make self pairing claims. The stones that were paired were added to the TKW of NWA 5480. Sometimes it is simply an accident that the 'other' material is thought to be the same, other times it is not this way. Either way, it is the responsibility of resellers to do the right thing. So, lets keep it real and do the responsible thing for the sake of accuracy for both the science and to keep collectors confident in what they are purchasing. As new meteorite collectors/dealers enter the arena year after year, it is up to them to do the right thing. You can not simply take the word of someone who claims, "This material is for sure the same as 'NWA 1877, 2975, 5480' "... and the list goes on. As Adam coined several years ago, "When in doubt, check it out!" I wish everyone a prosperous and accurate year for collecting, finding and selling meteorites! Best regards, Greg Greg Hupe The Hupe Collection NaturesVault (eBay) gmh...@htn.net www.LunarRock.com IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault --- On Mon, 1/18/10, Zelimir Gabelica wrote: At 17:09 18/01/2010, Greg Catterton wrote: > I have often wondered and after some discussion with others I wanted to get the community feeling on the issue of pairings. > > If a meteorite say NWA 1877 for example is out there and more is recovered and verified to be the same material from the same strewnfield, should the new material share the NWA number and the TKW be updated? > I have noticed many pairings with NWA 1877 and many other meteorites. > Same material with different numbers and TKWs listed. > > Would it not be in the best interest to have all the paired samples share on number? This would surely cut the amount of NWA material by 1000 or more. > Why is this not done? > > What is the process for pairing material to share the NWA number? > Is it up to the dealer or the person who did testing? > > What affect would it have on value if something with a listed TKW of 200g suddenly was paired with the 3 other numbers assigned to the same material and the TKW was pushed to 1kg or more? > Surely it would decrease as supply grew. Is this a concern for some? > > I am trying to better understand the politics/red tape that goes with this area. > > Thanks, hope everyone is doing well. > > Greg C. > > > > > > > > > ___
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Zelimir: So it's possible all the classifications (shown below) are from the same fall? And perhaps from the same large mass? Thanks, > NWA 4857 (Algeria, Shergottite enr maf), 0.928 g in collection; tkw:1...@24 g: > > Paired with NWA 2975 (70.1 g), NWA 2986 > (170 g), NWA 2987 (82 g), NWA 4766 (225 g), NWA > 4783 (120 g), NWA 4864 (94 g), NWA 4878 (130 g), > NWA 4880 (81.6 g), NWA 4930 (117.5 g), NWA 5140 > (7.5 g), NWA 5214 (50.7 g), NWA 5219 (60 g), > NWA5313 (5.3 g) and NWA 5366 (39.6 g). > Cumulated tkw: 1273.3 g (as per Jan. 2010) > Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:46:15 +0100 > To: star_wars_collec...@yahoo.com; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > From: zelimir.gabel...@uha.fr > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions > > Hi Greg, > > This might be a typical question for Jeff Grossman. > > I am also continuously puzzled by the abundance > of paired meteorites (thus those that are officially recognized as such). > > Let's suppose that once one (or a few) > meteorite(s) are selected from an important lot > (as found) and sold to someone, this someone > (scientist, collector) would envisage its classification. > And the same will possibly happen with the other meteorites from the same lot. > As a result, there will be as many different NWA > numbers, as independent classifications (of the - probably- same meteorite). > As most of these classifications probably won't > be concerted, there will not be pairings reported > and we will end up with as many different > meteorites, most probably of the same type, that > will never be suspected being paired. > > If a pairing is suspected, I believe this results > from "concerted" analyses (of either meteorites > stemming from the same lot and analyzed by > different groups, or of the same meteorites > provided by different finders (buyers) > brought for analysis to the same group). > > This even complicates further if there are more > than one such "lot" found (meteorite shower > spread throughout a large strewnfield). > > In case of such "concerted" analyzes, I guess > that the labs will still give a different NWA > number to each meteorite (or group of meteorites > from the same lot) analyzed, because one is never > sure that 2 meteorites supposed to come from the > same lot are at 100% the same. > If pairing is reported, then most of the time > (not always) it is mentioned in the Met. Bulls. > But because all analyzes were done independently, > each analyzed meteorite (or group of meteorites > from the same verified lot) will receive its own NWA number. > > Here I realize that, at that stage, it is very > difficult to decide to only retain as official > the first NWA number attributed chronologically > and to cancel all the next NWA numbers. > > I for one am just happy when pairings are > reported. This is often the case for "important" > types such as the planetaries. > But for the "common" H6's or L5's, I believe this is very seldom done. > > So far, regarding my collection catalogue, here > is what I mention (for my NWA 4857 sample taken > as an example), just to have an idea of the total > mass of that meteorite evaluated so far. > > NWA 4857 (Algeria, Shergottite enr maf), 0.928 g in collection; tkw:1...@24 g: > > Paired with NWA 2975 (70.1 g), NWA 2986 > (170 g), NWA 2987 (82 g), NWA 4766 (225 g), NWA > 4783 (120 g), NWA 4864 (94 g), NWA 4878 (130 g), > NWA 4880 (81.6 g), NWA 4930 (117.5 g), NWA 5140 > (7.5 g), NWA 5214 (50.7 g), NWA 5219 (60 g), > NWA5313 (5.3 g) and NWA 5366 (39.6 g). > Cumulated tkw: 1273.3 g (as per Jan. 2010) > > I know that this neither sheds more light to the > problem, nor answers your concerns. > Hopefully someone can add more to the issue. > > My best, > > Zelimir > > > At 17:09 18/01/2010, Greg Catterton wrote: >>I have often wondered and after some discussion >>with others I wanted to get the community feeling on the issue of pairings. >> >>If a meteorite say NWA 1877 for example is out >>there and more is recovered and verified to be >>the same material from the same strewnfield, >>should the new material share the NWA number and the TKW be updated? >>I have noticed many pairings with NWA 1877 and many other meteorites. >>Same material with different numbers and TKWs listed. >> >>Would it not be in the best interest to have all >>the paired samples share on number? This would >>surely cut the amount of NWA material by 1000 or more. >>Why is this not done? >> >>What is the process for pairing material to
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Zelimir brings up one more case that I didn't cover... when two names are given to the same physical stone. If the NomCom learns of this and can be sure that this is what happened, they can abolish one of the names. jeff On 2010-01-18 12:46 PM, Zelimir Gabelica wrote: Hi Greg, This might be a typical question for Jeff Grossman. I am also continuously puzzled by the abundance of paired meteorites (thus those that are officially recognized as such). Let's suppose that once one (or a few) meteorite(s) are selected from an important lot (as found) and sold to someone, this someone (scientist, collector) would envisage its classification. And the same will possibly happen with the other meteorites from the same lot. As a result, there will be as many different NWA numbers, as independent classifications (of the - probably- same meteorite). As most of these classifications probably won't be concerted, there will not be pairings reported and we will end up with as many different meteorites, most probably of the same type, that will never be suspected being paired. If a pairing is suspected, I believe this results from "concerted" analyses (of either meteorites stemming from the same lot and analyzed by different groups, or of the same meteorites provided by different finders (buyers) brought for analysis to the same group). This even complicates further if there are more than one such "lot" found (meteorite shower spread throughout a large strewnfield). In case of such "concerted" analyzes, I guess that the labs will still give a different NWA number to each meteorite (or group of meteorites from the same lot) analyzed, because one is never sure that 2 meteorites supposed to come from the same lot are at 100% the same. If pairing is reported, then most of the time (not always) it is mentioned in the Met. Bulls. But because all analyzes were done independently, each analyzed meteorite (or group of meteorites from the same verified lot) will receive its own NWA number. Here I realize that, at that stage, it is very difficult to decide to only retain as official the first NWA number attributed chronologically and to cancel all the next NWA numbers. I for one am just happy when pairings are reported. This is often the case for "important" types such as the planetaries. But for the "common" H6's or L5's, I believe this is very seldom done. So far, regarding my collection catalogue, here is what I mention (for my NWA 4857 sample taken as an example), just to have an idea of the total mass of that meteorite evaluated so far. NWA 4857 (Algeria, Shergottite enr maf), 0.928 g in collection; tkw:1...@24 g: Paired with NWA 2975 (70.1 g), NWA 2986 (170 g), NWA 2987 (82 g), NWA 4766 (225 g), NWA 4783 (120 g), NWA 4864 (94 g), NWA 4878 (130 g), NWA 4880 (81.6 g), NWA 4930 (117.5 g), NWA 5140 (7.5 g), NWA 5214 (50.7 g), NWA 5219 (60 g), NWA5313 (5.3 g) and NWA 5366 (39.6 g). Cumulated tkw: 1273.3 g (as per Jan. 2010) I know that this neither sheds more light to the problem, nor answers your concerns. Hopefully someone can add more to the issue. My best, Zelimir At 17:09 18/01/2010, Greg Catterton wrote: I have often wondered and after some discussion with others I wanted to get the community feeling on the issue of pairings. If a meteorite say NWA 1877 for example is out there and more is recovered and verified to be the same material from the same strewnfield, should the new material share the NWA number and the TKW be updated? I have noticed many pairings with NWA 1877 and many other meteorites. Same material with different numbers and TKWs listed. Would it not be in the best interest to have all the paired samples share on number? This would surely cut the amount of NWA material by 1000 or more. Why is this not done? What is the process for pairing material to share the NWA number? Is it up to the dealer or the person who did testing? What affect would it have on value if something with a listed TKW of 200g suddenly was paired with the 3 other numbers assigned to the same material and the TKW was pushed to 1kg or more? Surely it would decrease as supply grew. Is this a concern for some? I am trying to better understand the politics/red tape that goes with this area. Thanks, hope everyone is doing well. Greg C. __ 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 Prof. Zelimir Gabelica Université de Haute Alsace ENSCMu, Lab. GSEC, 3, Rue A. Werner, F-68093 Mulhouse Cedex, France Tel: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 94 Fax: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 15 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
As always, Jeff offers great insight to this, I highly value his comments. That is my main point, many stones such as the Martian you mention, being well known pairs could be served better to share a same number rather then many spread around - this would as I said present a problem to dealers and collectors who would then got from having the "main mass" or only stone to just having another one of the lot. Big monetary value is also at stake here. A Martian main mass sells for considerable amount more per gram then a sample from it. When NWA 5480 was announced, it seems right away more of it came out of morocco for a good amount less per gram. Perhaps its common for them (in Morocco) to hold back on some to sell as what the others were tested as? This could lead to more pairings? Its just my opinion that we as a community could do much more to make the current system more clear and accurate when it comes to pairing stones. Surely there is an amount of scientific leeway for variations of readings from type sample to type sample, could this not be applied to pairing? I am glad to see this getting some discussion as I am sure many will learn valuable information from this. I also think buyers would also like to feel they are better informed as to pairings or potential pairings when making a purchase as this does seem to be a complicated area. Greg C. --- On Mon, 1/18/10, Zelimir Gabelica wrote: > From: Zelimir Gabelica > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions > To: "Greg Catterton" , > meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > Date: Monday, January 18, 2010, 12:46 PM > Hi Greg, > > This might be a typical question for Jeff Grossman. > > I am also continuously puzzled by the abundance of paired > meteorites (thus those that are officially recognized as > such). > > Let's suppose that once one (or a few) meteorite(s) are > selected from an important lot (as found) and sold to > someone, this someone (scientist, collector) would > envisage its classification. > And the same will possibly happen with the other meteorites > from the same lot. > As a result, there will be as many different NWA numbers, > as independent classifications (of the - probably- same > meteorite). > As most of these classifications probably won't be > concerted, there will not be pairings reported and we will > end up with as many different meteorites, most probably of > the same type, that will never be suspected being paired. > > If a pairing is suspected, I believe this results from > "concerted" analyses (of either meteorites stemming from the > same lot and analyzed by different groups, or of the same > meteorites provided by different finders (buyers) > brought for analysis to the same group). > > This even complicates further if there are more than one > such "lot" found (meteorite shower spread throughout a large > strewnfield). > > In case of such "concerted" analyzes, I guess that the labs > will still give a different NWA number to each meteorite (or > group of meteorites from the same lot) analyzed, because one > is never sure that 2 meteorites supposed to come from the > same lot are at 100% the same. > If pairing is reported, then most of the time (not always) > it is mentioned in the Met. Bulls. > But because all analyzes were done independently, each > analyzed meteorite (or group of meteorites from the same > verified lot) will receive its own NWA number. > > Here I realize that, at that stage, it is very difficult to > decide to only retain as official the first NWA number > attributed chronologically and to cancel all the next NWA > numbers. > > I for one am just happy when pairings are reported. This is > often the case for "important" types such as the > planetaries. > But for the "common" H6's or L5's, I believe this is very > seldom done. > > So far, regarding my collection catalogue, here is what I > mention (for my NWA 4857 sample taken as an example), just > to have an idea of the total mass of that meteorite > evaluated so far. > > NWA 4857 (Algeria, Shergottite enr maf), 0.928 g in > collection; tkw:1...@24 g: > > Paired with NWA 2975 (70.1 g), NWA 2986 (170 g), > NWA 2987 (82 g), NWA 4766 (225 g), NWA 4783 (120 g), NWA > 4864 (94 g), NWA 4878 (130 g), NWA 4880 (81.6 g), NWA 4930 > (117.5 g), NWA 5140 (7.5 g), NWA 5214 (50.7 g), NWA 5219 (60 > g), NWA5313 (5.3 g) and NWA 5366 (39.6 g). > Cumulated tkw: 1273.3 g (as per Jan. 2010) > > I know that this neither sheds more light to the problem, > nor answers your concerns. > Hopefully someone can add more to the issue. > > My best, > > Zelimir > > >
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Thanks very much Jeff., Your answer arrived while my post was sent. By all means it better explains the complicated situation regarding pairings than my poor trials. Zelimir At 18:01 18/01/2010, Jeff Grossman wrote: I think I've answered this before, but again: Yes, it would be great if all meteorites that fell as a single shower (in a single field o'strewn) had a single name. When a meteorite is found in Kansas or Germany or Mexico, it's fairly easy to look in databases and catalogs and find all the possible pairings within, say, 50 km. If there are any of the correct class, then it's ofter a simple matter to compare the two meteorites and decide if they are paired. NomCom rules actually require that this is done, and if the probability of pairing is high, a new name will not be granted to the new specimen. When a new meteorite is found in, e.g., Oman or Libya or Antarctica, things get much harder. With hundreds of potential pairings commonly existing, it is often very difficult or even impossible to evaluate pairings. If the type is rare enough it might be easier, but even then the job can be burdensome on the classifier and the answer uncertain. Once two meteorites are given a single name, specimens become mixed up; it would be very hard to separate two meteorites that were wrongly given the same name. In light of all this, the NomCom has decided that there is little benefit to even trying to pair meteorites... names are cheap and analysts' time is valuable. Therefore, each specimen can and should be given a separate name. From time to time, a situation comes up where a very strong case can be made for pairing two meteorites from a dense collection area. Usually the motivation for doing so is money: the owners don't want to donate 20 g or 20% type specimens of each of 10 valuable specimens that are so obviously paired. In this case, if they can make an overwhelming case for pairing, including geographic information, then the NomCom can grant a single name to the multiple pieces. For NWA specimens, this is not supposed to happen. The lack of geographic information means that one can not be certain of any potential pairing. Therefore, the NomCom will not grant single names to multiple finds. Of course, superimposed on all of this NomCom policy is what collectors and dealers do by themselves, unsanctioned by the Meteoritical Society. Probably everybody knows of cases where somebody obtained a new specimen and labeled it as an existing meteorite from NWA or another dense collection region. In addition, when NWA and other meteorites are first classified, there often are multiple pieces lumped together. According to NomCom rules, these groupings are only allowed when all the pieces were picked up within a few m of each other or fit together, but there is no guarantee that this is the case. So that's the story. I hope this explains some things. Jeff On 2010-01-18 11:09 AM, Greg Catterton wrote: I have often wondered and after some discussion with others I wanted to get the community feeling on the issue of pairings. If a meteorite say NWA 1877 for example is out there and more is recovered and verified to be the same material from the same strewnfield, should the new material share the NWA number and the TKW be updated? I have noticed many pairings with NWA 1877 and many other meteorites. Same material with different numbers and TKWs listed. Would it not be in the best interest to have all the paired samples share on number? This would surely cut the amount of NWA material by 1000 or more. Why is this not done? What is the process for pairing material to share the NWA number? Is it up to the dealer or the person who did testing? What affect would it have on value if something with a listed TKW of 200g suddenly was paired with the 3 other numbers assigned to the same material and the TKW was pushed to 1kg or more? Surely it would decrease as supply grew. Is this a concern for some? I am trying to better understand the politics/red tape that goes with this area. Thanks, hope everyone is doing well. Greg C. __ 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 -- Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ 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 Prof. Zelimir Gabelica Université de Haute Alsace ENSCMu, Lab. GSEC, 3, Rue A. Werner, F-68093 Mulhouse Cedex, France Tel: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 94 Fax: +33 (
Re: [meteorite-list] Pairing discussion/questions
Hi Greg, This might be a typical question for Jeff Grossman. I am also continuously puzzled by the abundance of paired meteorites (thus those that are officially recognized as such). Let's suppose that once one (or a few) meteorite(s) are selected from an important lot (as found) and sold to someone, this someone (scientist, collector) would envisage its classification. And the same will possibly happen with the other meteorites from the same lot. As a result, there will be as many different NWA numbers, as independent classifications (of the - probably- same meteorite). As most of these classifications probably won't be concerted, there will not be pairings reported and we will end up with as many different meteorites, most probably of the same type, that will never be suspected being paired. If a pairing is suspected, I believe this results from "concerted" analyses (of either meteorites stemming from the same lot and analyzed by different groups, or of the same meteorites provided by different finders (buyers) brought for analysis to the same group). This even complicates further if there are more than one such "lot" found (meteorite shower spread throughout a large strewnfield). In case of such "concerted" analyzes, I guess that the labs will still give a different NWA number to each meteorite (or group of meteorites from the same lot) analyzed, because one is never sure that 2 meteorites supposed to come from the same lot are at 100% the same. If pairing is reported, then most of the time (not always) it is mentioned in the Met. Bulls. But because all analyzes were done independently, each analyzed meteorite (or group of meteorites from the same verified lot) will receive its own NWA number. Here I realize that, at that stage, it is very difficult to decide to only retain as official the first NWA number attributed chronologically and to cancel all the next NWA numbers. I for one am just happy when pairings are reported. This is often the case for "important" types such as the planetaries. But for the "common" H6's or L5's, I believe this is very seldom done. So far, regarding my collection catalogue, here is what I mention (for my NWA 4857 sample taken as an example), just to have an idea of the total mass of that meteorite evaluated so far. NWA 4857 (Algeria, Shergottite enr maf), 0.928 g in collection; tkw:1...@24 g: Paired with NWA 2975 (70.1 g), NWA 2986 (170 g), NWA 2987 (82 g), NWA 4766 (225 g), NWA 4783 (120 g), NWA 4864 (94 g), NWA 4878 (130 g), NWA 4880 (81.6 g), NWA 4930 (117.5 g), NWA 5140 (7.5 g), NWA 5214 (50.7 g), NWA 5219 (60 g), NWA5313 (5.3 g) and NWA 5366 (39.6 g). Cumulated tkw: 1273.3 g (as per Jan. 2010) I know that this neither sheds more light to the problem, nor answers your concerns. Hopefully someone can add more to the issue. My best, Zelimir At 17:09 18/01/2010, Greg Catterton wrote: I have often wondered and after some discussion with others I wanted to get the community feeling on the issue of pairings. If a meteorite say NWA 1877 for example is out there and more is recovered and verified to be the same material from the same strewnfield, should the new material share the NWA number and the TKW be updated? I have noticed many pairings with NWA 1877 and many other meteorites. Same material with different numbers and TKWs listed. Would it not be in the best interest to have all the paired samples share on number? This would surely cut the amount of NWA material by 1000 or more. Why is this not done? What is the process for pairing material to share the NWA number? Is it up to the dealer or the person who did testing? What affect would it have on value if something with a listed TKW of 200g suddenly was paired with the 3 other numbers assigned to the same material and the TKW was pushed to 1kg or more? Surely it would decrease as supply grew. Is this a concern for some? I am trying to better understand the politics/red tape that goes with this area. Thanks, hope everyone is doing well. Greg C. __ 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 Prof. Zelimir Gabelica Université de Haute Alsace ENSCMu, Lab. GSEC, 3, Rue A. Werner, F-68093 Mulhouse Cedex, France Tel: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 94 Fax: +33 (0)3 89 33 68 15 __ 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] Pairing discussion/questions
I think I've answered this before, but again: Yes, it would be great if all meteorites that fell as a single shower (in a single field o'strewn) had a single name. When a meteorite is found in Kansas or Germany or Mexico, it's fairly easy to look in databases and catalogs and find all the possible pairings within, say, 50 km. If there are any of the correct class, then it's ofter a simple matter to compare the two meteorites and decide if they are paired. NomCom rules actually require that this is done, and if the probability of pairing is high, a new name will not be granted to the new specimen. When a new meteorite is found in, e.g., Oman or Libya or Antarctica, things get much harder. With hundreds of potential pairings commonly existing, it is often very difficult or even impossible to evaluate pairings. If the type is rare enough it might be easier, but even then the job can be burdensome on the classifier and the answer uncertain. Once two meteorites are given a single name, specimens become mixed up; it would be very hard to separate two meteorites that were wrongly given the same name. In light of all this, the NomCom has decided that there is little benefit to even trying to pair meteorites... names are cheap and analysts' time is valuable. Therefore, each specimen can and should be given a separate name. From time to time, a situation comes up where a very strong case can be made for pairing two meteorites from a dense collection area. Usually the motivation for doing so is money: the owners don't want to donate 20 g or 20% type specimens of each of 10 valuable specimens that are so obviously paired. In this case, if they can make an overwhelming case for pairing, including geographic information, then the NomCom can grant a single name to the multiple pieces. For NWA specimens, this is not supposed to happen. The lack of geographic information means that one can not be certain of any potential pairing. Therefore, the NomCom will not grant single names to multiple finds. Of course, superimposed on all of this NomCom policy is what collectors and dealers do by themselves, unsanctioned by the Meteoritical Society. Probably everybody knows of cases where somebody obtained a new specimen and labeled it as an existing meteorite from NWA or another dense collection region. In addition, when NWA and other meteorites are first classified, there often are multiple pieces lumped together. According to NomCom rules, these groupings are only allowed when all the pieces were picked up within a few m of each other or fit together, but there is no guarantee that this is the case. So that's the story. I hope this explains some things. Jeff On 2010-01-18 11:09 AM, Greg Catterton wrote: I have often wondered and after some discussion with others I wanted to get the community feeling on the issue of pairings. If a meteorite say NWA 1877 for example is out there and more is recovered and verified to be the same material from the same strewnfield, should the new material share the NWA number and the TKW be updated? I have noticed many pairings with NWA 1877 and many other meteorites. Same material with different numbers and TKWs listed. Would it not be in the best interest to have all the paired samples share on number? This would surely cut the amount of NWA material by 1000 or more. Why is this not done? What is the process for pairing material to share the NWA number? Is it up to the dealer or the person who did testing? What affect would it have on value if something with a listed TKW of 200g suddenly was paired with the 3 other numbers assigned to the same material and the TKW was pushed to 1kg or more? Surely it would decrease as supply grew. Is this a concern for some? I am trying to better understand the politics/red tape that goes with this area. Thanks, hope everyone is doing well. Greg C. __ 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 -- Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ 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] Pairing discussion/questions
Good question Greg. I'm curious to see if you'll hear anything other than crickets in response. ;) On 1/18/10, Greg Catterton wrote: > I have often wondered and after some discussion with others I wanted to get > the community feeling on the issue of pairings. > > If a meteorite say NWA 1877 for example is out there and more is recovered > and verified to be the same material from the same strewnfield, should the > new material share the NWA number and the TKW be updated? > I have noticed many pairings with NWA 1877 and many other meteorites. > Same material with different numbers and TKWs listed. > > Would it not be in the best interest to have all the paired samples share on > number? This would surely cut the amount of NWA material by 1000 or more. > Why is this not done? > > What is the process for pairing material to share the NWA number? > Is it up to the dealer or the person who did testing? > > What affect would it have on value if something with a listed TKW of 200g > suddenly was paired with the 3 other numbers assigned to the same material > and the TKW was pushed to 1kg or more? > Surely it would decrease as supply grew. Is this a concern for some? > > I am trying to better understand the politics/red tape that goes with this > area. > > Thanks, hope everyone is doing well. > > Greg C. > > > > > > > > > __ > 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
