This is the same old shtick. Just another way to confuse what has to be learned
the hard way, by educating yourself before considering the purchase of ANY
"meteorite".
Who or what is trustworthy? It isn't obvious. This sounds like a case that
allows for confusion and defends chaos rather than
Today's Meteorite Picture of the Day: Sahara 99477
Contributed by: Steve Dunklee
http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp
__
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.co
Correction: It would be nice to *hear
jw
On 11/24/2014 8:28 AM, Jim Wooddell via Meteorite-list wrote:
Hi Y'all
It would be nice to here from the NomCom in regards to this for my
education.
I do not have any issue with each meteorite (fragment/size or other)
being classified/submitted/a
Hi Y'all
It would be nice to here from the NomCom in regards to this for my
education.
I do not have any issue with each meteorite (fragment/size or other)
being classified/submitted/approved for several reasons.
I very much appreciate the effort.
Would like to know more about the requests/
Hi all,
I have just uploaded a few meteorite books to my sales page,
specifically some British Museum meteorite catalogues. Please take a
look here:
(http://msg-meteorites.co.uk/tradesale)
If you see something you like but you don't like the price then let me
know and i may be open to offers :-)
Agreed. I noticed that. I just reported what I saw in the Bulletin
was far as assigning names goes. NonCom said 43 meteorites, but it
readily apparent it is the same meteorite. This is similar to what we
see with the various Antarctic programs - each tiny fragment gets it's
own catalog number.
Good Morning Michael,
Thanks for taking the time to compose your excellent explanation. It gives not
only newcomers to the meteorite market, but all of us, a better appreciation of
the perils of pairing (not to mention self-pairing).
With best regards,
Bob V.
> On Sunday, November 23, 201
7 matches
Mail list logo