[meteorite-list] Largest collection criteria

[MexicoDoug 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
> >