[meteorite-list] status of NWA brachinites

[MeteorHntr at aol.com]

Greg, and List,

So, does this place NWA  595 in another group (grouplet) or would it be 
totally unique and anomalous,  being the only representative known from it's parent 
body (so  far)?

Looking at anomalous irons, we see a list of MANY such  meteorites.  In fact, 
being "anomalous" or "unique" seems, from the  collector point of view as 
less significant than if a rock is "grouped" with at  least 4 other similar falls 
into an officially named group.

It would be  impossible for a collector to collect one of every group AND one 
of every  anomalous meteorite.  So is this the logic behind a prejudice 
against  non-grouped meteorites with collectors?  

If RARITY was a key factor  in values, wouldn't now NWA 595 spike very high 
in value above what it was when  it was thought to be a Brachinite?  It is now 
unique.  It is now not  one of 10 other Brachintes, but it is now 1 of 1 known 
of an extremely low TKW  from a different parent body.

Is NWA 595 now LESS valuable to science  since it is not grouped with 
Brachinites?

I would think it is now MORE  valuable to science. 

So, should it become more valuable collectors as  well?

OK, I can kind of see the lack of increased commercial values with  anomalous 
irons, in that science isn't doing as much research with irons as with  
achondrites.  And with no thin sections of irons, it is very hard to see or  
appreciate unique features that make ungrouped irons "special" or  "different."

But with the unique achondrites, and the unique chondrites I  think they 
should be more valuable.  If someone had a unique Silver Dollar,  Ferrari, or 
dinosaur skeleton it would be worth more, so why not with  meteorites?

Of course, as a dealer and as a marketer myself, I can  appreciate when a 
dealer will "romance" what they have.  And when more and  more of something 
previously (more) rare is diluted (say with a 5th of the same  thing being found) 
and a new "group" is formed, then one should spin the  positive with the "news" 
of the new group being formed. ;-)

And, yes, as  a new group is formed, there is usually at least one new 
research paper churned  out to at least announce the occasion and the new name of 
the group.  So, I  can see why all of a sudden some people would want at least a 
representative  sample from the new group, especially if they are a collector 
that collects one  from each recognized group.

And the more dealers that are romancing their  particular specimen from a new 
group the more chatter there is in the community  of collectors.  

But, in the case of Brachinites, that group has  been recognized for some 
time, so it isn't really a "new" one.

So, can  anyone help me understand this a little better?

Steve Arnold  #1
www.SteveArnoldMeteorites.com 








In a  message dated 12/2/2008 9:16:35 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
Zelimir.Gabelica at uha.fr writes:
Yep Greg, you are fully right. I just made a  wrong recopy from the 
database. Sorry for that. Even if NWA brachinites are  not so numerous, it 
is easy to make confusions.

Regarding NWA 595,  this is new to me, though, as Met. Soc. member, I do 
have all the MAPS  issues.
Strange that, after this rather official statement (MAPS abstract),  nobody 
brought corrections to the Met Bull data...

Thanks a lot, yest  it greatly helps.

Best,

Zelimir  

**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW 
AOL.com. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)