[meteorite-list] Largest collection criteria

[Gerald Flaherty]

This is my amateurish thought since I am so proud of my tiny collection that 
I want to burst each time think about it! Jerry
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <MexicoDoug at aol.com>
To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Largest collection criteria


> 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
>> >
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list