[meteorite-list] Largest Meteorite Collection

[Martin Horejsi]

Hi,

I think you might be misunderstanding my point. In reality, if you 
apply NWAs to my scheme of ranking, they will likely be undervalued 
since many of the criteria do not work well with:

Unknown find dates
Unknown locations
Unknown TKWs
Unknown proportion of TKW
Easily accessed pieces over 1kg
Lack of any collection documentation

NWAs are important meteorite specimens, and I do own some. In fact, I 
was purchasing and trading with the Labennes for Saharan material back 
in 1996 when they first offered it.

Also, in case anyone remembers when David New offered ad-Dahbubah many 
years ago, he got it from me.

So in essence, I don't think my scheme treats NWAs fairly.

My scheme, my thoughts.

Martin



On Apr 21, 2005, at 3:43 PM, stan . wrote:

>
>
>> As far as NWA, I merely excluded them from my schemes, not from the 
>> ranking meteorite collections. I just did not spend the time trying 
>> to figure out what about them is quantifiable given so many unknowns 
>> with respect to their discovery. If you have a scheme, I'm all ears. 
>> But I will disagree with you if NWAs are treated the same as other 
>> finds.
>
>
> but why should they be exculded?
> you could argue that the  TKW of an NWA might not be easily fixed - 
> with apired stones and newly discovered material comming up for sale 
> at later dates - but then again, do you know with any certainty how 
> much allende, murchison, gibeon, sikote alin, or even park forest is 
> in existance?
>
> you might argue that one really might not know where an nwa came from 
> int erms of physical impart site - but thats why they are given 
> numbers associated with a dense colelcting area - but when all is said 
> and done - does it really matter where the stone fell? a gold bar 
> falling out of the sky is worth just as much per ounce if it lands in 
> algeria as it does if it lands in arizona...
>
>