[meteorite-list] Re: Meteorites Lost to science (Was Meteorobs what does a meteorite look like?
From: E.L.Jones <jonee_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:41:09 2004 Message-ID: <3A876D1A.CA207E2A_at_epix.net> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Here is my editorial on the topic and still it is economical at 2 cents and issue. <p>On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:26:54 -0800, "Ed Majden" wrote: <p> "We don't want the meteorite getting lost to science because the price has been driven up in some collectors market and often lost to the people who should be studying it for clues about the origins of the solar system." <p>First of all, I agree with this statement-- technically. I think we collectively, don't want any meteorite lost to science. Yet, this statement is an implied affirmation that this IS the state of afairs in the world <i>e.g</i>. "...often lost to the people who should be studying"? That is a double insult to the collector's community. After all ,don't those collections get ultimately donated to the world's curators? And to get recognized, don't they have to have a portion curated in one of those research institutions? This sounds like a public affairs, political posturing, retorical statement rather than reasoned beliefs. Instutional types resent the market in anything. They were complacently used to being given anything they wanted-- eminate domain over private interests. When the middle class evolved to enjoy the artifacts museums rejected, the museums laughed at them. I ask outside the Cold Desert Collection..... Where did the world's supply of meteorites come from.... >From private individuals by in far. The cost of acquisition of the world's curated collection of meteorites where ever they may be is very likely less than US$2.5 million total. Yet the inventory value of the curated non Antarctic meteorites is $30-$50 maybe even $100 million if valued at open market prices. Where is the Beef? <p><b>Here is the Beef!</b> <br>I read this statement and, even though I think Ed is a pretty "squared away" bloke of Canadian extraction with some realtime meteorite recovery responsibilities-- I was flabbergasted at this assertion of "meteorites being lost to science often". Even if this was not what he was talking directly about-- Taglish Lake is too fresh in my mind for that statement to be digestible. Something like 80-99% of that novel type of meteorite became "catastrophically water-altered" at the bottom of the lake and along its snowy shores-- forever lost to science and collections. The rationale for revoking export permission for privately owned Taglish Lake Stones, demand of the return of the identification samples, and the exclusion of any volunteer hunters at the time of the fall, is not defensible -- it was "cutting off one's nose to spite the community's face!!!" <p><b>Is this "fallout" from the Calcalong Creek Affair? ....</b> <br>Yet this irrational reaction must stem from some resentment, which is clandestinely expressed in one-sided, yet legal position. After all, these are all "learn-ed men" are they not? So let me state now--Both Rob And Ed have been cordial and professional with me in all assistance in past dealings. I do not consider them irrational or selfish. I respect their positions and I know if they actually feel that there are meteorites stolen from Canada and Australia they must be revoicing the "us vs. them "attitudes by researchers they associate with. Perhaps I shouldn't presume to speak for them, however. Where do these beliefs arrise? Why are they so slanted against the collector's market? <p>The Calcalong Creek Lunarite Affair was a very embittering incident which might be the roots of such belief, especially when one only hears the positions of the Australian authorities. Restrictions on Export of Australian meteorites cam about as a result of the temper tantrum like response of the Australian researcher who ran to his governement crying foul. We have asked for years that the universities open up dialog with the hunting community at large. Largely, we are ignored, discounted, and given the go away brush-off. So we, too, maintain our stereotypes of the research community. This issue has surfaced on the list from time to time over the last three years. (We are very fortunate to have some researchers party to our list. With notable exception, they rarely make input. At least they get to see our position, even if YUC is in our lexicon). <p>When researchers make the claim that meteorites are "lost to science" via inflated (market) prices, are they ignoring the fact that a requisite 20% or 20 grams must be placed in curation for the Meteoritical Society to approve a meteorite's classification? Frankly, institutional to private back to institutional trades are a daily affair. If the powers that be in the former colonies don't participate it may be more because of their own arrogance rather than that they are truly priced out of the market. Not "just any" researcher/institution can get access to "just any" of the Antarctic meteorites. It is not a matter of money <i>per se.</i> Access to selected meteorites is gained by submission of a research proposal. It must meet peer review and stand in a line with other requesters and be ordered by merit. I would argue that if a researcher hasn't gotten hold of a meteorite(s) they want to study it is easier to blame the "collector" than to accept that their search request didn't make the cut. I further suspect that they are "closet collectors" and would be openly were many of them not restricted from private ownership. <p><b>Possession is 9/10ths....</b> <br>So...while I disagree with the position of the Taglish Lake Embargo and think it was more injurious to the meteorite community than collectors will EVER be a detriment to science-- and the belief that we are injurious is fraught with fallacy and jealousy. The research community has access to some 24,000 plus meteorites from Antarctica. We have had access to TWO of them by last count. Virtually NONE of the fantastic finds of Africa and The Mid-East would be available at ALL were it not for the market generated by collectors and the hunters who go find them! Let me restate: Big Brother has 95 to 99% of the known meteorites and they begrudge us what we pay to go find? <p><b>I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours...</b> <br>If finders/ dealers chose to exclude Canada and Australia in future finds, they would have moral grounds to stand on. For example, IF I ever recovered the "biggie"-- I might be inclined to license the distribution of such material that I retain ownership. Licenses would possibly be VERY difficult to obtain by researchers in countries which were stingy with their material. <p><b>So in closing, three things...</b> <br>1) I too would like to know about stolen meteorites being lost to researchers... or is this a tale that has been repeated so often that it is accepted as fact. <br>2) Perhaps it is time to start cataloging the ownership rules of the some of the popular meteorite collecting countries so that we may judge for ourselves what is legal and illegal. <br>3) I challenge any researcher to tell us, what meteorite has been lost to what institution because it was too expensive/out of means to get it from the curator? Im am sure there have been, but was this for display or hard research that it was out of reach? <p>Regards, <br>Elton Jones <blockquote TYPE=CITE> </blockquote> </html> Received on Sun 11 Feb 2001 11:57:22 PM PST |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|