[meteorite-list] Largest collection criteria

From: MexicoDoug_at_aol.com <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri Apr 22 00:02:51 2005
Message-ID: <197.3d688dba.2f99d15b_at_aol.com>

Hola List, The largest collection?
 
Hmmmm. I think how well the collection satisfies you is more important.
Statistics need to be defined for those with the need to brag or compare their
collection with others. Clear measurements don't work for large. They do
for:

The most represented finds, falls.

The most from a particular geographical area (A NWA collector my snub a US
collector, to each his own).

The most represented duplicate samples..

The most types, anomolous meteorites..

The most massive.
 
The most atoms, molecules of space rocks (Multiply by Avocado:)s number)

The most valuable (oops, no price guide) Better: The highest insured value.

The greatest average weight in the 200, 500, 1000 specimen range collections.

The most oriented meteorites, whole individuals, of a type, etc.

The one that takes up the most floor space (that is a competition of
cabinets)

etc. etc.

The largest means nothing. It is an ambigous construction of two words
applied arbitrarily in the eye of the beholder. What is important is how
satisfied the collector is. I had my biggest collection when I got my first 1-2
gram Allende as a gift a long time ago. It has been great, but imperceptably
downhill all the way...

Apples and oranges are hard enough. But when everyone has a bushel of mixed
fruits largest is just an empty boast.
Saludos, Doug


En un mensaje con fecha 04/21/2005 9:14:33 PM Mexico Daylight Time,
martinh_at_isu.edu escribe:
Hi Tracy,

When talking about large private collections, in general they really off the
radar of what most collectors think is a large collection.

For example I have the catalog of a collecting friend of mine. The
collection has well over 1000 location represented with more than 300 of them
witnessed falls.

Many of the pieces are over 100g, and numberous drifting up to or over 1kg.
There are also many main masses, and rather large pieces of ultra rare types
including howardites over 100g and ureilites over 50g. SNCs in the 20-200g
size and three eucrites over 1kg mixed in with many others in the 10s to 100s of
 grams. Twenty-nine carbonaceous chondrites are listed, many over 100g.

Oh,and out of the 1100+ locations, I count only 7 specimens listed as from
NWA or the Sahara. I also only count 3 specimens under 1g.

So I guess if you have millions of dollars and loads of time, a private
citizen can build a collection competitive with most museums. But for many of us,
we wi
ll just have to settle for nice regional collections.

But is all this really the point of collecting? Ok, maybe.

Cheers,

Martin




----- Original Message -----
From: tracy latimer <daistiho_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2005 6:39 pm
Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Largest collection criteria

> I'd like to think that I have a fairly good-sized collection from
> sheer
> diversity, despite the fact that almost none of my collection is
> larger than
> 5 grams. I have over 150 unique falls or finds, mostly in micro
> specimens.
> My criteria are very simple: "Do I have a specimen of this find or
> fall?"
> Of course, I'd prefer to pick up a micro of Portales Valley or
> Weston rather
> than an L6 NWA, but other than that, anything goes.
>
> Tracy Latimer
>
> >
> >I'd think that if you are speaking of the "largest", you'd have to
> measure
> >the volume of the collection. I'd think a stone slightly "bigger"
> than a
> >similar size iron would be co
nsidered the larger of the two. That
> could be
> >problematic though, so you could use the weight of two collections
> with
> >simlar stone/iron weight ratios. What was Marvin's...4 tons?
> >
> >Anyone have any idea how much Bob Haag's collection weighs?
> >
> >If you're talking about most diverse, it would be the number of
> unique
> >types of specimens.
> >
> >If you're talking about most valuable, then it would require
> measurement
> >against a common price list.
> >
> >Quality would be much more subjective other than the obvious (a
> ton of
> >weathered NWAs certainly wouldn't compare to a ton of historic
> falls).>
> >Regards to all,
> >Phil
> >
 
Received on Fri 22 Apr 2005 12:02:35 AM PDT