AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon Sep 13 12:15:37 2004
Message-ID: <03cb01c499ab$6acd18e0$6401a8c0_at_c1720188a>

Dear John and List,

The word apparent double standard would apply here. If you feel it is ok to
pick numbers at random for additional finds when it comes to NWA and not
others, why is this not happening with the Antarctic, Sahara, DAGs, SAUs and
Dhofars? Why is it that when a Martian meteorite was announced as NWA 1068
some dealers are using a number that describes a pairing instead (NWA 1110)?
Could it be that they are too lazy to apply for their own numbers, have
their material studied and submitted for vote. NWA 1110 is not a catchall
for additional finds, it is an official set of tested pebbles that happen to
be Martian. Using the name NWA 869 is meaningless because like Kem Kem it
has become a catchall stone. I would go as far as to say, you would better
off selling NWA 869 as unclassified because an unclassified stone seems to
be worth more on the open market these days. This one of the reasons I
object strongly when it comes to rare material.

All the best,

Adam




----- Original Message -----
From: "John Birdsell" <birdsell_at_email.arizona.edu>
To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Cc: "stan ." <laser_maniac_at_hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Enough is Enough, Now NWA 1877


> Hello Stan and List. Yes, this was exactly the point that we made in an
> earlier posting (The Probem with Reductionism ad Infinitum). The
> members of this list have not yet received any response from Adam on
> this matter and we wonder if he or anyone else have a reasonable
> explanation for this apparent double standard.
>
> -John & Dawn
>
>
>
> stan . wrote:
>
> >
> >> Regarding the different procedure for e.g. NWA / Gao-Guenie - this
> >> issue was addressed
> >> in an email by Jeff Grossman dated Sept. 9, 2004 (see below).
> >>
> >> Gao-Guenie can be treated like Allende or Holbrook in this context as
> >> it doesn't apply to areas of dense meteorite concentration.
> >
> >
> >
> > but what about stones like nwa 869? technically each one of them nees
> > it's own nwa number and must be classified...
> >
> > my argument against the current guidelines is such:
> >
> > if a person were to submit 'x' new find comprising of many fragments
> > of a meteorite, classification can be done based upon a representative
> > thin section of only 1 fragment (or even a few tinsections) - even if
> > there are many MANY fragements to the find. all of the fragments get
> > the same nwa number with little or no testing done to them.
> >
> > now if more material if found in the exact same place, by the same
> > people, and is the exact same rare classification as the orginal find
> > - but it's found after the original stuff is published - then the new
> > material must have thermoluminecence studies, cosmic ray exposure, and
> > oxygen isotopse data taken before the material will be considered
> > paired to the orignial find.
> >
> > I challange anyone to give me a valid scientific reason why material
> > sumbited before publishing can all be considered nwa xxx based upon a
> > cursory visual examination - yet material found after a write up in
> > the met bul requires exhaustive additional testing to qualify as a
> > pairing - testing that science make take years to complete for even
> > the most exotic meteorites such as martian and lunars.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
> > FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Mon 13 Sep 2004 12:04:56 PM PDT