[meteorite-list] ORIENTATION Re: March 4 RSPOD Oriented (sic) 32kg stone

[Michael L Blood]

Great Idea Darryl,
        I am going to work on a small book outlining such a scale -
graded from 1 to 10, and as definitive as coin grading.... Of course
there will always  be differences of "interpretation" - but no one
should come up with a "7" for something most will see as a 2 or 3.
Neither would I expect the scientific community to embrace such
a system, but who knows? - It would certainly be useful for the
collecting community and, if properly done, MAY be considered
for adoption by the IMCA. My goal will be to come up with a
system based on concise descriptions of specific parameters and
a collection of photos demonstrative of said specific categories.
        I will report to the list as said list develops. My initial goal
Will be to come up with at least a preliminary (nearly finished, but
Open to input for refinement) by May 31.
        If people will send me some photos - and of course, all suggestions
Are welcome -  I will get right on it. (off list, of course) Any and all
photos must be accompanied by a "release" for use by the photographer.
I would be particularly interested in those who have excellent photos
Of the phenomenal "10" oriented specimen this year in Mike Farmer's
Room. I think it was a Urilite or Diogenite owned by the Karls? Also,
The supurb "10" oriented S-A sold for $7K the previous show by
Carine & Bruno Fectay. I will, of course, require representatives
Down to the slightest "lipping" on one edge or a hint of flow lines
Here or there - and everything in between.
    Personally, I prefer to collect only 8, 9 & 10s (I have a few
10s - but small) - the rest I barely bother to describe as "show
Some orientation" - but this is a much better arrangement.
        RSVP with photos off list.
        Thanks, Michael

on 3/4/08 6:10 AM, Darryl Pitt at darryl at dof3.com wrote:


> 

> 

> 

> in my experience, the single most problematic term in meteorite

> commerce is "orientation."  this seems to be in part due to a

> reluctance to differentiate objects which exhibit a bit of

> orientation from those which exhibit nothing but orientation.

> 

> the new generation of collectors are not to be faulted for the

> seeming misapplication of the term as a result of what is today its

> liberal, ubiquitous use.

> 

> might i suggest that the list come up with a grading system of

> orientation in much the same way that weathering and shocking are

> graded.

> 

> three or four grades of orientation to finally---FINALLY--put this

> notion to rest.

> 

> d.