[meteorite-list] Hammer Question

From: Meteorites USA <eric_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:07:25 -0700
Message-ID: <4C1A645D.7050905_at_meteoritesusa.com>

Hi Richard, Michael, List,

(Sorry if this gets posted multiple times. I sent it yesterday, and
again this morning and it didn't go through, and I added a few points.)

I understand what you mean. What's important is the "reason" why people
are questioning the definition. More accurately, it's related directly
to circumstance of the fall and perceived value to the collector. The
definition of "Hammer" is broad, but the perception of value is not,
with respect to what someone is willing to pay, based on whatever
man-made object it hits, and the circumstances surrounding it.

A broad definition itself is meaningless in and of itself, but it
doesn't make the Hammer meaningless because, when it comes down to when
the money changes hands for the stone and the purchase is made, the
buyer ultimately will decide based on the perceived value of the Hammer
in question, and that depends on ALL the circumstances of the fall.
Buyers dictate market not definitions. And this definition discussion is
really about the market. Buyers will determine the value of a Hammer
based on the circumstances of the meteorite fall, the class/type, and
what the meteorite impacted. Obviously if a meteorite hit a road, by
definition below, it would be a hammer, however it wouldn't be worth as
much as say a meteorite which impacted a car traveling on that road. I
think that collectors are smart enough to make that distinction.

I agree with on the devaluing problem of associating and calling "ALL"
the meteorites from any meteorite fall Hammers, where only 1 or 2 stones
actually impacted man-made structures. I think it's pretty simple and
clear and most would agree that only the stone(s) that actually hit the
man-made structure should be considered a Hammer Stone. Calling the
entire meteorite fall a "Hammer Fall" is confusing I think because
people will make a connection and relate it to all stones in the fall
when that's not the case.

I'll add that I think anyone who knowingly tries to sell a single
meteorite that isn't an actual Hammer Stone and tries to claim that
meteorite as a Hammer Stone should be ashamed of themselves. People
should NEVER claim a meteorite as a Hammer just because another single
stone from that same meteorite fall is a Hammer. In my opinion if the
dealer doing the promoting doesn't have and promote the actual stone
that impacted the object that made it a hammer stone, then it's
borderline fraud. If the dealer is "CLEAR" in the promotion of the
meteorite for sale and the collector knows the difference between both a
Hammer Stone and a Hammer Fall then that should be fine.

Associating ALL meteorites from any given meteorite fall with the the
only single Hammer Stone in that fall, is like a car dealer saying
"President Obama Drove This BMW! Z4" when in fact he didn't drive the
actual car on the lot, but one "like it". It's not the same thing, it's
misleading, confusing to new collectors, and in my opinion dishonest on
the dealers part. Again I think collectors will make that determination
with their purchase. In my opinion there needs to be CLEAR distinctions
on what a Hammer Stone is versus what a Hammer Fall is IF both terms are
to be adopted.

As for the definition of Hammer Stone, in my opinion I think it's obvious.

Hammer Stone - Any single natural rock which falls "from space" to Earth
and impacts an artifact, human, or animal.
(I worded it this way to dissuade people from jumping on planes and
dropping their meteorite collections on people. ;)

(Also, this is only my "opinion" of how the definition should read,
based on Michael Blood's own definition. The reason for my suggested
definition is that the term "Hammer Fall" is subjective and needs to be
defined before, if ever, including it in a definition for Hammer Stone.)

As for those that would argue that the term "Hammer" is nothing more
than a ploy to make a meteorite more valuable. You're right, but only
partly... It IS more valuable to anyone that wants it because it hit an
artifact, human, or animal. Ignoring that circumstance ignores a big
reason why people collect. History and uniqueness!

It's not a ploy. It's a simple fact! A meteorite that hits an artifact,
human or animal IS "valued" more than a meteorite that just hit the
ground. This is absolutely natural, automatic, and should go without
saying. People that would try to argue this point otherwise is welcome
to try to buy a piece of Claxton, or Peekskill or any other meteorite
which hit something besides the ground, then try to claim it a marketing
ploy. It's a Meteorite Collecting fact, and one big reason why people
collect meteorites in the first place. If people don't care about
meteorite Hammers then they don't have to buy one. If people are upset
because the actual "price" is too high in their opinion, that's their
opinion, and this is mine.

It's way cooler to own and collect a meteorite that "Hammered" an
artifact/object than a meteorite that only hit the ground.

Regards,
Eric Wichman
Meteorites USA

On 6/16/2010 11:10 AM, Richard Kowalski wrote:
> Hey Eric,
>
> I think you and I are looking at this question coming from rather different directions.
>
> Your post is about valuation of hammers, and my post is about a definition, a subject which you kind of give short shrift to by saying we could get too "anal"ytical about.
>
> To me, the thing that gets hammered, is irrelevant if the definition is so broad as to be nearly meaningless. To also include all the stones in a fall as part of a "hammer fall" seems ridiculously broad, to me that is. 100,000 stones fall, but a single 1g frag bounces against barn, so all the other 99,999 have been made "more special" in some way?
>
> If that's what some collectors believe, that's fine with me. Again, that isn't my area of collecting.
>
> I agree it is up to the collector to place a value on the hammer, depending on what object was struck, where it was located, and the story and or media coverage about the strike, but that is a different topic. One of valuation, not the definition of what a hammer is.
>
>
> --
> Richard Kowalski
> Full Moon Photography
> IMCA #1081are hammers. That to me is not
>
>> really a question.
>>
>> The question is how much more is a hammer stone "worth" if
>> it hit a shed (regardless of building materials) versus it
>> hitting a dirt road or even a paved road. Colletors
>> will probably not care much if it hits a road unless there's
>> history surrounding it. Now, if the hammer in question hits
>> a mailbox, then it's probably "worth" what someone will pay
>> for it. Simple.
>>
>> It would be up to the dealer who sells the meteorite as a
>> hammer as long as he/she explains what the "hammer stone"
>> impacted and the circumstances surrounding it, and then only
>> if the the dealer is honest with the collector/buyer, and
>> the collector/buyer chooses to spend more on it because it
>> hit something man-made would it be worth more.
>>
>> If being a hammer stone means a meteorite was worth less no
>> one would care what constitutes a hammer.
>>
>> The valuation is the degree of perceived importance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Eric Wichman
>> Meteorites USA
>> www.meteoritesusa.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/15/2010 11:52 PM, Shawn Alan wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Listers,
>>>
>>> Now I have a good question about hammer meteorite
>>>
>> falls. It is said that a meteorite fall is a hammer fall if
>> it hits something that is man made. Now if a meteorite lands
>> on the surface of a serviced dirt road, a road made by man
>> from dirt, rocks, oil to coat the road, or other processes
>> to maintain the dirt road, wouldn't that constitute as being
>> a hammer fall?
>>
>>> Shawn Alan
>>> IMCA 1633
>>> eBaystore
>>> http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_trksid=p4340
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
Received on Thu 17 Jun 2010 02:07:25 PM PDT