[meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?

From: Mike Bandli <fuzzfoot_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 20:24:38 -0800
Message-ID: <20090104042447.916A810554_at_mailwash5.pair.com>

The problem with the 'hammers' is that some are not. For example: Pultusk,
which is broadly referred to as a 'hammer,' when, without conclusive
evidence, it is unknown what actual/individual stones or 'peas' struck
artifacts. The same can be said about Murchison, Allende, and many others. I
believe a true 'hammer' can only be a piece of the actual meteorite that
struck the human/artifact and not the fall itself.

The lure of hammers (to me) has been the material with irrefutable evidence
and/or photographic documentation. To name a few: Strathmore, Claxton,
Peekskill, and recently, 'Zunhua.' But then consider Ausson, which lacks any
photos and or clear documentation - still a hammer?

I think that the hammer category is great, but, like Dave said, there needs
to be some clarity and consistency to what a hammer really is!

Bonk!

Mike Bandli

 



-----Original Message-----
From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Gheesling
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 7:25 PM
To: cynapse at charter.net; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?

Good points, Darren...and the list of collecting criteria could go on and on
ad infinitum. Yet it would also be interesting to measure this hammer issue
not in units but in dollars (or Euros or whatever currency). Like you, I
have no solid statistics here (this arena really needs them badly, by the
way), but, when looking at market price and/or relative price/gram (i.e.
"value"), the representative percentage of both collectors in the community
and specimens in collections would obviously be substantially higher than on
a units basis. Whatever the statistics, it is true that a significant
premium is paid by collectors for "hammers," and we could probably all (at
least most) agree it would be a good thing to have a better definition of
that term...at least a consistent one.

-----Original Message-----
From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Darren
Garrison
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 10:18 PM
To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What makes a hammer a hammer?

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 21:50:18 -0500, you wrote:

>I thought you meant to say the community of hammer collectors within
>the meteorite collecting community was small -- relative to the
>international meteorite collecting community itself.

I would say that it probably is, when defined as a "main concern" for the
collectors-- you have people who collect by type, people who collect by
location, people who collect only witnessed falls, and people who collect
based on wherther or not it hit some human artifact. At most, what
percentage of meteorite collectors have "hammers" being a main collecting
criteria? 10%? I'd bet that it doesn't approach 25%. It is, then, a small
percentage of what is already a tiny (compaired to world population and
compaired to other areas of
collecting) group of people.

My point being-- a term in use by such a small number of people and known by
such a small number of people woukd, I think, be more vaguely defined than
something-- say-- that would reach The OED or Encyclopedia Britannica
(leaving the Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia out of the equation for the
moment).
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Sat 03 Jan 2009 11:24:38 PM PST